You are here: / Evidence
, ,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction after a weight of the evidence analysis, over a dissent, determined that defendant had proved the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect by the preponderance of the evidence:

… [W]e conclude that the jury was not justified in finding that the preponderance of the evidence failed to establish that the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to know or appreciate that his conduct was wrong at the time that he possessed the loaded firearm and shot Wright. The undisputed trial evidence established that at the relevant time, the defendant was suffering from auditory hallucinations, paranoia, and “incorrect perceptions” of reality. The opinion of the People’s expert psychologist that the defendant did not suffer a schizoaffective disorder, notwithstanding such a diagnosis by the defendant’s treating psychiatrists over the past three years, was conclusory. Moreover, the psychologist’s alternative theory that the defendant’s hallucinations were due to his use of PCP were purely speculative and without adequate evidentiary support. The psychologist’s conclusion that the defendant was motivated by revenge against a person he mistakenly perceived to have stolen his shorts was also speculative and contrary to the credible evidence presented. We accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor … , and weigh conflicting expert evidence … . However, on this record, the rational inferences which can be drawn from the evidence presented at trial do not support the conviction. People v Spratley, 2018 NY Slip Op 01488, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT)/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DEFENDANT PROVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction after a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the evidence did not support the conclusion defendant acted as an accomplice in the assault of a homeless man. The codefendant doused the homeless man with lighter fluid and set him on fire. The defendant said “Do that shit man” and recorded the incident on his phone for one minute before attempting put out the fire:

For the defendant to be held criminally liable for the conduct of the codefendant, the People had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the codefendant to engage in that conduct, and that the defendant did so with the state of mind required for the commission of the offense (see Penal Law § 20.00). A defendant’s mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge that the crime is taking place, or mere association with the perpetrator of a crime, is not enough for accessorial liability … .

It is undisputed that the defendant did not assist the codefendant in dousing the victim with lighter fluid or setting fire to the victim, and did not supply any of the materials to the codefendant to commit the criminal act. The defendant’s actions, in uttering, “Do that shit, man,” as the codefendant doused the victim with lighter fluid, and in filming this incident for approximately one minute before rendering any aid to this particularly vulnerable and helpless victim, were deplorable. However, his actions did not support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the codefendant to assault the victim, and that he did so sharing the codefendant’s state of mind. People v Fonerin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01480, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY (CRIMINAL LAW,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ACCOMPLICE LIABILIITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT RECORDED THE CODEFENDANT DOUSING THE HOMELESS MAN WITH LIGHTER FLUID AND SETTING HIM ON FIRE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))

,

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, in a comprehensive street stop (DeBour) analysis too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when he asked defendant, a passenger in a car, “what do you have.” Defendant replied that he had a “piece” and he was convicted of possession of a weapon:

There was nothing improper about the police officers’ direction that the defendant and the two other occupants exit the vehicle. “In light of the heightened dangers faced by investigating police officers during traffic stops, a police officer may, as a precautionary measure and without particularized suspicion, direct the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle to step out of the car” … . However, the scope of that authority is limited to guarding against “the unique danger of a partially concealed automobile occupant by allowing the officer to order occupants out of a car and readily observe their movements” … . …

In the context of a traffic stop, the Court of Appeals has made clear that “a police officer who asks a private citizen if he or she is in possession of a weapon must have founded suspicion that criminality is afoot” …, thereby squarely placing this type of inquiry within De Bour level two. Moreover, mere nervousness does not provide the requisite indication of criminality … .

Here, the circumstances described by Officer Weibert at the suppression hearing did not establish “a founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot” … . Significantly, there was no testimony of a bulge at the defendant’s waistband … , or any indication that the defendant was reaching for, grabbing at, or adjusting his waistband … . To the contrary, Officer Weibert denied that the defendant made any furtive gesture or reached for anything; he testified only that the defendant was acting nervous, shaking his knees and legs up and down, and leaning forward in his seat with his hands in his lap and his arms tightly at his side. People v White, 2018 NY Slip Op 01492, Second Dept 3-7-18

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS,  OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/DE BOUR (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this staircase slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant demonstrated it did not have notice of the wet condition of the stairs. Plaintiff’s opposing affidavit contradicted her deposition testimony. Although the deposition was unsigned, defendant demonstrated the certified transcript was provided to plaintiff’s attorneys but it was never returned. Therefore the deposition served as plaintiff’s admission:

Defendant met its prima facie burden on the motion of establishing that it neither created the alleged wet condition nor had prior actual or constructive notice of it. By plaintiff’s own admission, the wet condition, which she never saw but assumes was there, could only have been created moments earlier, having not been present when she walked up the steps … .

Based upon plaintiff’s testimony that she was using both hands to carry her daughter down the steps when she fell, without any indication that she reached for a handrail, defendant established that the lack of a handrail did not proximately cause or contribute to the accident … .

Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition, wherein she claimed that she tried to reach for a handrail when she fell, raised only feigned issues of fact, as it directly contradicted, and appears to have been tailored to avoid the consequence of, her earlier testimony … .

Pursuant to CPLR 3116(a), plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcript may be used as though fully signed, as defendant submitted proof that the certified transcript was provided to her attorneys for execution and not returned. Moreover, an unsigned but certified transcript may be used as an admission… , especially where, as here, there is no dispute as to the accuracy of the transcript … . Luna v CEC Entertainment, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01429, First Dept 3-6-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3116 (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITION (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ADMISSION  (UNSIGNED DEPOSITION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRS  (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction, noted the difference between a “legal sufficiency” analysis and a “weight of the evidence” analysis on appeal, and reiterated that criminally negligent homicide is not a lesser included offense within depraved indifference murder. Here the two-year old victim was subjected to severed physical abuse over a period of days or longer:

Defendant argues that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. A legal sufficiency challenge requires us to “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether ‘there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged'” … . A legally sufficient verdict may, however, be against the weight of the evidence … . The latter review requires us to assess whether acquittal was a reasonable possibility and, if so, to weigh “the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” in deciding whether the verdict was justified … . * * *

Criminally negligent homicide demands that a person act “with criminal negligence” and, in doing so, “causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). Inasmuch as criminal negligence involves a person failing “to perceive [the] substantial and unjustifiable risk” of the result set forth by the statute (Penal Law § 15.05 [4]), a person does not commit criminally negligent homicide unless he or she fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death …  In contrast, Penal Law § 125.25 (4) demands that an adult person, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, . . . recklessly engage[] in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than [11] years old” and that ends in the other person’s death (emphasis added).

The definition of serious physical injury encompasses injuries that do not create a substantial risk of death or cause death, such as those that cause “serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10]). As we have previously held, it is therefore theoretically possible to commit depraved indifference murder of a child by “engag[ing] in conduct that creates and disregards a grave risk of serious physical injury, causing death, without . . . engaging in conduct that creates . . . a substantial risk of death, causing death” … . People v Stahli, 2018 NY Slip Op 01359, Third Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank’s (OneWest’s) motion for summary judgment should have been denied because standing was not demonstrated with evidence meeting the business records hearsay exception requirements. The Second Department criticized Supreme Court for doing its own Internet research and making a sua sponte finding that OneWest had standing:

In support of its motion, OneWest submitted the affidavit of Jillian Thrasher, an employee of its loan servicer, who averred that OneWest was the holder of the note, which is endorsed in blank, and assignee of the mortgage at the time the action was commenced. However, OneWest failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records that Thrasher relied upon under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since she did not attest that she was personally familiar with OneWest’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Insofar as the Supreme Court reached its determination that OneWest had standing by, sua sponte, “independently tak[ing] judicial notice of the FDIC website,” this Court has repeatedly cautioned against such independent Internet investigations, especially when conducted without providing notice or an opportunity for the parties to be heard … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Berino, 2018 NY Slip Op 01318, Second Dept 2-28-18

FORECLOSURE (EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (INTERNET RESEARCH, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/INTERNET RESEARCH BY COURT (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))

,

PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim based upon a fall from a ladder. The court noted that the property owner was liable even if the property owner was unaware the plaintiff had been hired by a tenant (here a deli, also a defendant). The deli owner had provided the A-frame ladder which moved side to side and fell to the ground. The court noted that the defendant owner’s opposition papers were entirely hearsay, which cannot defeat summary judgment:

Plaintiff’s fall from an unsecured ladder establishes a violation of the statute …  for which defendant property owner is liable, even if the tenant contracted for the work without the owner’s knowledge … . Plaintiff sufficiently identified the location of the deli at his deposition, and also stated that the deli owner offered him money to paint the sign.

In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The statements of the owner of the deli and the deli worker were unsworn and inadmissible as hearsay. It should be noted that in the over 2 ½ years since the statements were taken, defendant never attempted to obtain affidavits from these witnesses or attempted to depose them, proffering their statements only after plaintiff had moved for summary judgment. Indeed, in its responses to discovery requests, defendant affirmatively represented that it was “not presently in possession of any statements from witnesses to the accident.”

While hearsay statements may be offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, hearsay statements cannot defeat summary judgment “where it is the only evidence upon which the opposition to summary judgment is predicated” … . Gonzalez v 1225 Ogden Deli Grocery Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01280, First Dept 2-27-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s presence in a meth lab was not sufficient to demonstrate constructive possession of the contraband in the lab:

A defendant’s mere presence in the same location as contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession … . Knowledge that the contraband is present is insufficient, standing alone, to show constructive possession… . Some factors that courts may consider in determining whether a defendant constructively possessed contraband are the defendant’s proximity to the contraband, whether the defendant had keys to the location where the contraband was found, whether the contraband was in plain view, evidence that the defendant had used some of the drugs (when drugs are the contraband at issue), and whether there is witness testimony that the contraband belonged to the defendant … .

The evidence at trial demonstrated that defendant and [codefendant] Yerian had been in the garage with [codefendant] Alberts for approximately one hour when the officer arrived. There was no evidence that defendant lived in the house or garage, kept any of his personal belongings there or had keys to the property… . When the officer observed defendant in the workshop area, which measured approximately 10 to 12 feet by 20 to 24 feet, defendant was sitting on a stool in front of a bench, not touching anything. No contraband was recovered from defendant himself, nor did the proof establish that he owned or had even touched any of the contraband. People v Maricle, 2018 NY Slip Op 01217, Third Dept 2-22-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/METHAMPHETAMINE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE IN A METH LAB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND, METH-RELATED CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action was properly denied. Although the bank demonstrating standing to bring the action, it did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 with admissible evidence:

… [S]ince the defendant raised the issue of compliance with RPAPL 1304 as an affirmative defense in his answer, the plaintiff was required to make a prima facie showing of compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Sherry Benight, an officer of Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), the loan servicer, along with two copies of a 90-day notice addressed to the defendant and a proof of filing statement pursuant to RPAPL 1306 from the New York State Banking Department. While mailing may be proved by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Benight, in her affidavit, did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff’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 … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notices included a list of five housing counseling agencies, as required by the statute (see RPAPL 1304[2]). Although Benight stated in her affidavit that the notices included such a list, the copies of the notices submitted merely included information about contacting a hotline that would provide “free personalized advice from housing counseling agencies certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.” Bank of Am., N.A. v Wheatley, 2018 NY Slip Op 01175, Second Dept 2-21-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (HEARSAY, FORECLOSURE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s unopposed motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Defendants raised the issue of plaintiff’s standing in their answer to the complaint. The bank’s proof of standing was not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

“A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” … . “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” … .

The plaintiff attempted to establish its standing by submitting an affidavit of Jillian Thrasher, a contract management coordinator at Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Thrasher averred, in relevant part, that her affidavit was based upon her review of Ocwen’s business records, and that upon review of such records, the note was physically transferred to the plaintiff on December 1, 2006. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Thrasher were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) because Thrasher, an employee of Ocwen, did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . US Bank N.A. v Ballin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01212, Second Dept 2-21-18

FORECLOSURE (ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (FORECLOSURE, HEARSAY, ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy