Evidence – Page 284 – New York Appellate Digest

POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this car-bicycle accident case was properly denied. The police report was not authenticated and was not submitted in admissible form, so it could not be considered. The defendant driver failed to eliminate a question of fact whether she was comparatively negligent for failing to see what should have been seen:

Although “reports of police officers made upon their own observation and while carrying out their police duties are generally admissible in evidence”… , the report in this case was inadmissible because it was “not authenticated” and, “[b]ecause the report was not submitted in evidentiary form, it should not have been considered on the summary judgment motion” … . Here … the parties failed to “provide[] an acceptable excuse” for failing to tender the evidence in admissible form … .

With respect to the merits, ” [w]hether a plaintiff [or defendant] is comparatively negligent is almost invariably a question of fact and is for the jury to determine in all but the clearest cases’ ” … . In support of their motion, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of defendant, which raised a question of fact regarding her attentiveness as she drove her vehicle… . It is well settled that every driver of a motor vehicle has “the common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen . . . through the proper use of his [or her] senses’ ” … , and that “a motorist is required to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists, . . . and to operate the vehicle with reasonable care to avoid colliding with anyone on the road” … . Here, the evidence submitted by defendants established that defendant had an unobstructed view of the street as plaintiff’s bicycle approached her vehicle, yet she failed to see him or his bicycle prior to the collision. Thus, we conclude that defendants “failed to establish that there was nothing [defendant] could do to avoid the accident and therefore failed to establish that she was free of comparative fault” … . Chilinski v Maloney, 2018 NY Slip Op 00744, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (EVIDENCE, POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/BICYCLES (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))

February 2, 2018

Criminal Law, Evidence

DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the attempted assault conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

The only witness who identified the defendant prior to trial admitted to being intoxicated at the time of the stabbing incident. That witness failed to identify the defendant at trial. Although the People presented the testimony of three other witnesses who identified the defendant at the trial, those witnesses did not identify the defendant at any point prior to the trial, even though they were present at the scene of the crime when the defendant was apprehended and they appeared at a police precinct for questioning later that day. Two of the witnesses’ descriptions of the perpetrator’s clothing varied significantly from the clothing worn by the defendant upon his apprehension, which occurred within minutes of the incident. At the scene, those witnesses provided no further description of the defendant. Despite testimony that the victim began “gush[ing]” blood after he was stabbed during a physical struggle, the arresting officer did not remember having seen any blood on the defendant’s person or clothing when he was apprehended. That police officer testified that, after witnesses pointed to the perpetrator, he briefly “lost sight” of that person before apprehending the defendant. People v Serrano, 2018 NY Slip Op 00573, Second Dept 1-31-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

January 31, 2018

Criminal Law, Evidence, Landlord-Tenant, Trespass

ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, in a matter of first impression, determined the defendant did not have standing to move to suppress firearms found in his bedroom in an apartment. Defendant had been living with the family who leased the apartment. Based on failure to pay rent, the marshal changed the locks, leaving the possessions inside, thereby tendering “legal possession” of the apartment to the landlord. Answering a complaint of trespass, police officers entered the apartment and found one of the family members who had been renting it inside. The police searched the apartment and seized several handguns in defendant’s room. The defendant argued that the People did not demonstrate the eviction (legal possession) had been done legally, and therefore he had standing to move to suppress. But the Second Department noted that defendant, who had relied on the evidence presented by the People, did not demonstrate the eviction (legal possession) was illegal and therefore did not meet his burden of proof on that issue. The defendant also argued that he had an expectation of privacy in the bedroom at the time it was searched. But the Second Department determined once the legal possession was accomplished, defendant had no right to enter the apartment, and therefore had no expectation of privacy in his former bedroom:

… [T]he defendant, to establish his standing, relied on the evidence presented by the People regarding the execution of the warrant of eviction…. [W]hile the defendant is correct that the “Marshal’s Legal Possession” letter did not establish that the legal possession had been obtained legally, it likewise did not establish that the legal possession had been obtained illegally.

… [T]he defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that he had standing to challenge the search of his former bedroom and seizure of the guns and ammunition based upon the alleged illegality of the legal possession … . * * *

Here, the legal possession gave the landlord the right to possess the apartment and remove the tenants and occupants. Although their belongings remained in the apartment, thereby necessarily creating a bailment, the tenants and occupants no longer had a legal right to possess or control the subject apartment, nor to enter or remain therein. Given that the defendant had no legal right to possess or control the subject apartment after the landlord was given legal possession thereof, any subjective expectation of privacy he manifested in the bedroom which he had occupied in the apartment was not objectively reasonable … . People v McCullum, 2018 NY Slip Op 00570, Second Dept 1-31-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SUPPRESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LEGAL POSSESSION, CRIMINAL LAW, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL POSSESSION (LANDLORD-TENANT, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))/EVICTION (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, LEGAL POSSESSION, ONCE THE LOCKS ON THE APARTMENT WERE CHANGED PURSUANT TO A LEGAL POSSESSION, DEFENDANT NO LONGER HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN HIS BEDROOM, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGAL POSSESSION WAS ILLEGAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THE FIREARMS FOUND IN HIS BEDROOM (SECOND DEPT))

January 31, 2018

Criminal Law, Evidence

INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attempted grand larceny counts should not have been dismissed or reduced based upon the grand jury evidence. The defendant was attempting to remove mail from a mailbox in which envelopes containing money orders had been planted by the police. There was no evidence any of the envelopes defendant had removed contained the planted money orders. The motion court reduced the grand larceny counts because it could not be proven defendant intended to steal property of a certain value. The First Department held that the intent requirement does not attach to the value element of the offense:

The court erred in dismissing one count of the indictment, and reducing another, on the ground that the People were required to present proof of intent with regard to the property value elements of attempted grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees. These elements are strict liability aggravating factors when the completed crimes are charged. While the Penal Law definitions of attempt (Penal Law § 110.00) and intentionally (Penal Law § 15.05[1]) may be susceptible to the interpretation accorded them by the motion court, any ambiguity has been resolved by the Court of Appeals’ holding in People v Miller (87 NY2d 211 [1995]), that a strict liability aggravating factor of a completed crime is not a “result” to which an intent requirement attaches when an attempt to commit the completed crime is charged. Accordingly, the mental culpability requirements for an attempt and a completed crime are identical… , and the court erred in finding that the attempted grand larceny charges required evidence of intent to steal property of a certain value. People v Deleon, 2018 NY Slip Op 00531, First Dept 1-30-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/GRAND LARCENY (ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))/INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT))

January 30, 2018

Evidence, Real Estate

PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff Zaccaro was a real estate broker, not a finder, and was not entitled to a real estate commission because plaintiff acted as a broker for the buyer and the seller (impermissible dual agency without full disclosure):

Plaintiffs’ argument that Zaccaro was merely a finder instead of a real estate broker is unavailing. The amended complaint, which was verified by Zaccaro’s president, alleges that plaintiffs were [the buyer’s] real estate brokers. This statement constitutes a formal judicial admission …”.

Furthermore, a finder has no obligation to negotiate the real estate transaction in order to obtain its fee … . Here, the amended complaint indicates that plaintiffs were obligated to negotiate the sale of the premises. In particular, the amended complaint alleges that [the buyer] authorized plaintiffs “to act as the licensed real estate brokers … . …

Plaintiffs’ contention that the seller was not injured by Zaccaro’s dual agency is unavailing. Where, as here, the duty of undivided loyalty is breached, plaintiff broker forfeits its right to a commission, “regardless of whether damages were incurred” … . P. Zaccaro, Co., Inc. v DHA Capital, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00458, First Dept 1-25-18

REAL ESTATE (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/BROKERS, REAL ESTATE (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/DUAL AGENCY (REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/FINDER (REAL ESTATE, (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/JUDICIAL ADMISSION (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/ADMISSION (JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))

January 25, 2018

Evidence, Foreclosure

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s (Wilmington’s) motion for summary judgment should have been denied in this foreclosure proceeding. The bank’s papers did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

Wilmington submitted an affidavit of the managing director of its loan servicer, who attested to the defendant’s default in payment. While he attested to the mailing of a notice of default in accordance with the mortgage and a 90-day notice in accordance with RPAPL 1304, his affidavit did not contain a statement that he was familiar with JP Morgan’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp v Kagan, 2018 NY Slip Op 00416, Second Dept 1-24-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

January 24, 2018

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Foreclosure, Judges

BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bank’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment in this foreclosure proceeding was properly denied because the motion relied on documents verified and affirmed by counsel and an affidavit by a person with no first-hand knowledge of the facts asserted. The Second Department noted that the bank’s motion to amend the caption, by substituting named parties for “John Does” should have been granted and the complaint should not have been dismissed sua sponte:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit the requisite proof of the facts constituting the claim … “While a verified complaint may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim, it must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge”… . ” [A] pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020 (d) (3)[, and not by someone with personal knowledge of the facts,] is insufficient to establish its merits'”… . On its motion, the plaintiff submitted the complaint, verified only by counsel, and an affirmation of counsel, with counsel having no personal knowledge of the facts. The plaintiff also submitted an affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer attesting to a default, but failing to address the relevant questions relating to the fact that the mortgagor did not own the subject property, whether the relevant documents should be reformed, or whether an equitable lien or mortgage should be imposed. First Franklin Fin. Corp. v Alfau, 2018 NY Slip Op 00409, Second Dept 1-24-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FORECLOSURE, DISMISSA OF COMPLAINT, BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE, BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))

January 24, 2018

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant should have been allowed to present reverse Molineux evidence (evidence that defendant did not commit other robberies committed close in time to the charged robberies with a similar modus operandi) as well as a fingerprint card which would show the absence of a blemish on defendant’s palm which was described by one of the robbery victims. Defendant was denied his right to present a defense. With regard to the reverse Molineux evidence, the court wrote:

Given defendant’s right to use reverse Molineux evidence, defense counsel sought to introduce two categories of evidence. First, counsel wanted to introduce the surveillance videos from the three robberies for which defendant was not on trial to show that he was not depicted in them: the jury was entitled to make its own assessment that the person sitting before them in the courtroom did not match the person shown in the three videos. There was no evidentiary rule that would have excluded the surveillance videos.

Second, defense counsel sought to introduce evidence that three witnesses from uncharged robberies had viewed lineups in which defendant participated, but had not identified him as the man who had robbed them. Had defense counsel presented the failure-to-identify testimony directly through each eyewitness, no evidentiary bar could have been raised: each eyewitness would have been qualified to say that he or she had viewed defendant in a lineup and that defendant was not the man who had robbed him or her. Had defense counsel been unable to find each of the eyewitnesses, or been otherwise unavailable to testify, and had instead sought only to introduce one or more of the failures to identify through the detective who had supervised the lineup, the detective’s testimony would have been hearsay. Counsel could have overcome the hearsay objection by showing that the identifications were admissible on constitutional grounds because they were reliable … . People v Montgomery, 2018 NY Slip Op 00351, First Dept 1-18-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/REVERSE MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/DEFENSE, RIGHT TO PRESENT (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT REVERSE MOLINEUX THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT OTHER UNCHARGED ROBBERIES WHICH HAD THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI AS THE CHARGED ROBBERIES, AS WELL AS AN EXCULPATORY FINGERPRINT CARD, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

January 18, 2018

Evidence, Medical Malpractice, Negligence

PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages in a medical malpractice action stemming from the defendant doctor’s (Mercado’s) destruction of handwritten notes made at the time plaintiff’s decedent was seen by the doctor. Plaintiff’s decedent, a child, Claudialee, died as a result of Mercado’s failure to diagnose diabetes:

… [W]e now hold that where, as here, a plaintiff recovers compensatory damages for a medical professional’s malpractice, a plaintiff may also recover punitive damages for that medical professional’s act of altering or destroying medical records in an effort to evade potential medical malpractice liability. Allowing an award of punitive damages for a medical professional’s act of altering or destroying medical records in an effort to evade potential medical malpractice liability will serve to deter medical professionals from engaging in such wrongful conduct, punish medical professionals who engage in such conduct, and express public condemnation of such conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury … . Gomez v Cabatic, 2018 NY Slip Op 00278, Second Dept 1-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DESTRUCTION OF WRITTEN NOTES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))

January 17, 2018

Appeals, Criminal Law, Evidence

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, applying a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the defendant had demonstrated he was not responsible for the criminal acts by reason mental disease or defect. Both the defense and the prosecution presented expert opinion evidence on the “not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect” affirmative defense. The Second Department found that the defense expert, who was experienced in forensic examinations (the prosecution expert was not) proved the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence:

In conducting our weight of the evidence review where a defendant relies solely upon the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, we first determine whether a finding of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect would have been reasonable. If we answer that question in the affirmative, then we must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, and evaluate the strength of such conclusions in order to decide whether the defendant met his burden of proving the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect by the preponderance of evidence … .

Given the conflicting expert opinions, as well as the witness testimony and psychiatric records, a finding of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect would have been reasonable. Weighing the opinion of the defense expert, who was an experienced forensic psychiatrist, against the opinion of the prosecution expert, a clinical neuropsychologist with limited experience in forensics, the defense expert’s opinion was more convincing, and entitled to more weight. The defense expert’s opinion better accounted for the witnesses’ testimony regarding their observations of the defendant’s increasingly bizarre behavior and onset of mental illness which began to exhibit itself just weeks before the incident, and continued during and after the incident until the defendant was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. The defense expert’s opinion was further corroborated by the defendant’s subsequent psychiatric diagnosis and history. People v Hernandez-Beltre, 2018 NY Slip Op 00307, Second Dept 1-17-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))