You are here: / Evidence
, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING DAILY SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER, THE PLAINTIFF’S AND A FACULTY MEMBER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY FOR ABUSE AND THE ABUSE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged daily sexual abuse by a teacher. The school district submitted plaintiff’s deposition transcript and a faculty member’s deposition transcript in support of the summary judgment motion. The plaintiff’s allegations of daily abuse and the faculty member’s testimony that students had informed him of the abuse and he believed other teachers were aware of the abuse raised questions of fact about negligent hiring and retention of the teacher and negligent supervision of the plaintiff:

In support of their motion, the defendants submitted … a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that over the course of the school year, while he was in the seventh grade, he was sexually abused by the teacher daily and that the teacher’s abusive propensities were common and open knowledge in the middle school’s community. The defendants also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of a faculty member who was employed by the school district at the same time as the teacher, who testified that students had informed him that the teacher engaged in inappropriate conduct and that he believed other teachers were aware of said alleged conduct. Therefore, the defendants’ own submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged abuse of the plaintiff and of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and as to whether the defendants’ supervision of the plaintiff and the teacher was negligent … . Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, the court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . T.F. v Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 03042, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: In Child Victims Act cases alleging frequent sexual abuse by a teacher, courts are increasingly willing to hold that the plaintiff’s allegations of frequent abuse alone are sufficient to raise a question of fact about constructive notice on the part of the school.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new “state action” hearing, determined defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to subpoena information about the store security guards’ employment should have been granted. The issue is whether the store security guards who detained the defendant in this grand larceny case were licensed to exercise police powers or acted as agents of the police. Defense counsel learned the name of the store’s lead investigator at the time of defendant’s detention on the eve of the state action hearing. The First Department noted that defense counsel could not properly subpoena the employment information without knowing the identities of the people involved:

… [W]e find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel a short adjournment. In denying the requested adjournment, the court found that defendant “could have done that [subpoena … records] a long time ago, maybe even when this appeal was being perfected.” On this appeal, the People make a similar argument that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the adjournment because defense counsel could have subpoenaed the materials during the pendency of this appeal. The problem with these arguments is that this Court had already recognized that, without information about the identity of the officers involved in defendant’s arrest, defense counsel was not in a position to meaningfully subpoena records … .

Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this is not the situation where defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence. In fact, as we held, without knowing the names of the store security guards involved in defendant’s detention, defendant was in no better position to subpoena the employer material than when he filed his initial motion. Thus, it was only upon learning the identity of one member of the security team that the defense could meaningfully begin to investigate whether the security guards were state actors. People v Sneed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03026, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is detained by store security guards, the detention may implicate constitutional protections if the security guards are licensed to exercise police powers or are agents of the police. The defense, therefore, may be entitled to a so-called “state action” hearing. To subpoena the appropriate store employment records, defense counsel is entitled to the identities of the security guards involved in defendant’s detention.

 

, ,

GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) although the judge accurately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence three times, the judge failed to acknowledge the erroneous instruction, requiring reversal; (2) the judge should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a civil case in which the officer was alleged to have shot the plaintiff after plaintiff was subdued; and (3) the judge should have granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record:

Notwithstanding that the court instructed the trial jury accurately and at length with regard to the presumption in its preliminary instructions, in another instruction at a break in the testimony of the first witness, and in its closing instructions, the court did not satisfy the requirement, clearly enunciated in People v Harrison (85 NY2d 891 [1995]), that “to obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it” … . A withdrawal in explicit terms cannot be accomplished without acknowledging the erroneous instruction, identifying the error, and providing a correct instruction … .

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion, under the standard set forth in People v Smith (27 NY3d 652 [2016]), in not permitting cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a civil suit, in which a testifying police officer in the present case was a defendant alleged to have shot the plaintiff in the leg in that case after he was subdued by police officers. The existence of the suit provided a “good faith basis for inquiring,” and the allegations of excessive force were “relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness” … . In light of the principle “that the right of cross-examination is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process” … , the seriousness of the allegation that the officer accidentally shot a [*2]suspect in the leg was sufficient to allow inquiry into the facts underlying the lawsuit.

… [T]he court should have granted defendant’s motion pursuant to People v Gissendanner (48 NY2d 543 [1979]) to the extent of conducting an in camera review of the officer’s disciplinary record, rather than forbidding all cross-examination regarding the allegations in an underlying civil suit. … The defendant’s motion should be granted when the defendant “put[s] forth in good faith . . . some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping for straws” … . Here, defendant alleged that the officer inflicted pain on him by twisting his wrist when he was already subdued, and the defense learned of two lawsuits in which the officer was alleged to have engaged in similar conduct. People v Fishbein, 2025 NY Slip Op 02996, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for (1) the procedure for correcting an erroneous jury instruction, (2) the criteria for allowing the cross-examination of a police officer about a civil suit in which it is alleged the officer shot the plaintiff, and (3) the criteria for granting a motion to conduct an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate standing in this foreclosure action. The affidavit submitted to demonstrate plaintiff had possession of the note prior to commencing the action was hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff relied on Harris’s affidavit to demonstrate that it had possession of the note prior to commencing this action. Harris averred, in relevant part, that the plaintiff received physical delivery of the original note on September 5, 2013. As the defendant correctly notes, Harris failed to attach any business record to her affidavit to demonstrate that fact or to aver that she had personal knowledge of the physical delivery of the note. Accordingly, Harris’s averment that the plaintiff had possession of the note prior to the commencement of this action was inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s standing … . Nationstar Mortage, LLC v Guarino, 2025 NY Slip Op 02925, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Whoever submits an affidavit stating the plaintiff in a foreclosure action had possession of the note before the action was commenced must attach a probative business record or demonstrate personal knowledge of the delivery of the note, not the case here.

 

, ,

THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES AND DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE ATTACHED BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS PROPERLY MAILED, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure, determined the plaintiff did not prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure, a condition precedent for foreclosure. The affidavit did not demonstrate the affiant had personal knowledge of the relevant mailing procedures and did not provide an adequate foundation for relevant business records:

… [T]he affidavits submitted in support of Bank of America’s second motion … for summary judgment on the complaint … did not establish the affiants’ personal knowledge of the standard office mailing procedures of LenderLive, the third-party vendor that apparently sent the RPAPL 1304 notices on behalf of Bank of America … . The affidavits also “failed to address the nature of [Bank of America’s] relationship with LenderLive and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into [Bank of America’s] own records or routinely relied upon in its business” … . Bank of America thus “failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive” … .. Accordingly, Bank of America failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of Bank of America’s second motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference. U.S. Bank N.A. v Bravo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02953, Second Dept 5-14-25

Same issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2025 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Any affidavit submitted by the bank in a foreclosure action to prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure must demonstrate the affiant’s personal knowledge of the mailing procedures and must lay a foundation for the admissibility of any business records relied upon to prove proper mailing.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE INFORMANT WHO CALLED 911 ABOUT A “MAN WITH A GUN” WAS KNOWN TO THE POLICE AND MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE RELIABLE, THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING ABOUT THE BASIS FOR THE INFORMANT’S KNOWLEDGE; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE HAD REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP THE DEFENDANT; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the suppression motion should have been granted. Although the informant who made the 911 call was known to the police, there was no testimony at the suppression hearing about the basis of the informant’s knowledge. The stop of defendant’s vehicle for failure to use a turn signal did not justify removing defendant from the vehicle and handcuffing him:

When the People seek to rely on information provided by an informant to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a vehicle stop, “‘it [is] essential that at least some showing be made of the basis of the informant’s knowledge'” … . Where there is no testimony demonstrating how the informant knew the defendant was engaged in illegality, such as the possession of a weapon, reasonable suspicion cannot be found … .

… Neither the sergeant nor the officer testified as to how the informant, who had called the 911 emergency number, knew that the defendant had a gun. Therefore, the People failed to demonstrate that the information provided by the informant constituted “more than unsubstantiated rumor, unfounded accusation or conclusory characterization” … .

In the absence of the People eliciting testimony at the suppression hearing that sufficiently explained how the informant knew the defendant was in possession of a weapon, the County Court erred in concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant … . Moreover, while the informant did identify the defendant from across the street, this identification occurred well after the defendant had been stopped and detained by the officers. “‘Where a police encounter is not justified in its inception, it cannot be validated by a subsequently acquired suspicion'” … .

… [W]hile the informant, who was known to the responding officers, may be presumed to be reliable, the basis of his knowledge was not sufficiently established at the suppression hearing. People v Thomison, 2025 NY Slip Op 02938, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing, the People have the burden to prove the legality of the police conduct. Where an informant known to the police calls 911 to report a “man with a gun,” the reliability of the informant may be presumed. But the People must still prove the basis for the informant’s knowledge. Where, as here, there is no testimony demonstrating how the informant learned about the “man with a gun,” the People have not met their burden of proof.

 

,

IN THIS STREET-STOP-FRISK CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIED HE SAW DEFENDANT PUT A BLACK OBJECT IN HIS JACKET POCKET, BUT HE DID NOT TESTIFY HE HAD A REASONABLE SUSPICION THE OBJECT WAS A FIREARM; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP AND FRISK; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECON DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of the suppression motion in this street-stop case, determined the police officer, Espinal, did not have a reasonable suspicion that the object defendant put in his pocket was a firearm. Therefore the officer did not have a sufficient reason to grab defendant’s pocket:

While driving down 193rd Street toward a dead end, Detective Espinal spotted a vehicle illegally parked in the middle of the dead end’s cul-de-sac. Detective Espinal testified that there appeared to be an individual in the driver’s seat and another individual standing outside the vehicle by the driver’s window. Detective Espinal observed that the individual standing outside the vehicle, who was later identified as the defendant, was holding a black object in his right hand, although Detective Espinal could not identify the object. Detective Espinal testified that when the defendant made eye contact with him, the defendant put the object into the right front pocket of the jacket that he was wearing and proceeded to walk toward the police vehicle with his hands in his jacket pockets. As the defendant continued to walk toward the police vehicle, Detective Espinal exited the vehicle and directed the defendant to take his hands out of his jacket pockets and put his hands up. Although the defendant initially complied, as Detective Espinal got closer, the defendant began to reach down toward his right jacket pocket. Upon seeing the defendant reach for his jacket pocket, Detective Espinal grabbed the pocket and felt a firearm inside. Detective Espinal withdrew a firearm from the defendant’s pocket and instructed one of his partners to place the defendant under arrest. * * *

… Detective Espinal did not have the required reasonable suspicion to frisk the defendant. Detective Espinal’s testimony is clear. He saw the defendant outside the illegally parked vehicle and watched as the defendant placed a black object in his jacket pocket. Detective Espinal did not testify as to what he thought the object was or whether he had any reasonable suspicion to believe that the object was a weapon of any kind, let alone a firearm. The only instance of illegality that Detective Espinal testified to was the illegally parked vehicle, which would not have provided the officers with a basis to frisk the defendant … . People v Taylor, 2025 NY Slip Op 02937, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: The People have the burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct in a stop and frisk. Here the officer testified he saw defendant put a black object in his pocket, but he did not testify he suspected the object was a firearm. The fact that the incident took place in a high-crime area was not enough to provide reasonable suspicion sufficient for a stop and frisk.​

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF TEACHER FELL WHEN SHE LEANED ON A DEFECTIVE DESK; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROVE THAT THE DESK WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DESK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city school district was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case. Plaintiff, a teacher, alleged she fell when she leaned on a defective desk. The school district did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the defective desk because it did not present proof that the desk was inspected close in time to plaintiff’s fall:

Plaintiff, a teacher at a school in the Bronx, alleges that she fell when she leaned on a defective desk as she was grading papers in the back of a classroom. Defendants sustained their burden of establishing that they neither created nor had actual notice of the alleged defect by submitting the testimony of the school’s custodian engineer stating that there had been no prior complaints or injuries related to the desk, and that there was no repair record of any desk because the school discarded broken desks and chairs. Plaintiff also testified that she was not aware of the defective desk leg until after her accident, and that none of the students who used the desk ever reported any defect to her …. .

Nevertheless, defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as they did not sustain their burden of demonstrating that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition. Although defendants relied on a daily logbook recording the custodian engineer’s daily routine for the building, the logbook was not sufficient to show that defendants inspected the classrooms to ensure that they were free from defects … . Furthermore, the custodian engineer testified at his deposition that although he inspected the classrooms every morning, he did so only to make sure that the heat was on. This testimony is insufficient to demonstrate defendants’ lack of constructive notice, as it fails to show that the alleged condition did not exist when the area was last inspected before plaintiff fell … . Mamah v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2025 NY Slip Op 02877, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Another example of how problematic proof of a negative, i.e., proof of a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition, can be.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STEPMOTHER COULD NOT CONSENT TO THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK, WHICH WAS IN THE STEPMOTHER’S APARTMENT, BECAUSE THE POLICE KNEW THE BACKPACK BELONGED TO DEFENDANT; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM A LOWER COURT RULING ON A GROUND NOT RULED ON BY THE LOWER COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s motion to suppress a firearm seized from a backpack should have been granted. The police knew the backpack, which was in his stepmother’s apartment, belonged to the defendant. Therefore defendant’s stepmother could not consent to the search. That First Department noted that the arguments raised by the People for the first time on appeal (defendant had abandoned the backpack and the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied) could not be considered because the lower court did not rule on them (a prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction):

Supreme Court incorrectly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence recovered from defendant’s bag based on his stepmother’s consent to search her apartment … . The testimony at the hearing was explicit that the officer conducting the search knew that the bag belonged to defendant and not defendant’s stepmother before he picked it up and felt what he believed to be a firearm inside. Therefore, she did not “possess[] common authority over . . . [the] effects sought to be inspected”—here, defendant’s backpack—and could not consent to a search of it … .

While the People argue, in the alternative, that defendant was trespassing and abandoned the bag when he left it in the apartment to surrender himself to the police, they did not advance this argument before the suppression court, and they are foreclosed from doing so now … . The same is true of their argument that search of the bag was permissible under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement … . Furthermore, the hearing court did not rule on these issues in denying suppression, “and therefore did not rule adversely against defendant on this point” … . Thus, this Court “lacks jurisdiction to affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress” the firearm on this alternative ground … . People v Gonzalez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02883, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s backpack was in defendant’s stepmother’s apartment. The police knew the backpack belonged to defendant. Therefore defendant’s stepmother could not consent to the search of the back pack.​

Practice Point: Here the People sought to affirm the lower court’s denial of the suppression motion on grounds which where not raised or ruled upon by the motion court. The appellate court does not have jurisdiction to affirm on a ground not ruled upon by the lower court.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TRANSLATED AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE; THE ROADWAY WHERE THE COLLISION OCCURRED WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE CLEARLY MARKED LANES; THEREFORE THE “UNSAFE LANE CHANGE” STATUTE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1128(A)) DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded to plaintiff in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff submitted his affidavit which had been translated but did not submit an affidavit from the translator attesting to the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of plaintiff’s affidavit. In addition, the roadway where the accident occurred was not divided into two or more clearly marked lanes. Therefore the unsafe-lane-change provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law did not apply to the facts:

In support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted his translated affidavit and dashcam footage from defendants’ vehicle. He argued that defendant driver made an unsafe lane change in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a), which provides that “[w]henever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic . . . [a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.”

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate his entitlement to summary judgment. His affidavit, which was not accompanied by an affidavit from a translator attesting to the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the affidavit, does not comply with CPLR 2101(b) and is therefore inadmissible … . Even if the affidavit could be considered, the dashcam video does not “conclusively establish” that defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) or eliminate issues of fact as to how the accident occurred … .

The dashcam video shows that Zerega Avenue was not divided into lanes in the southbound direction, and that neither vehicle was driving within a “clearly marked” lane of traffic when plaintiff’s vehicle drove up on the right side of defendants’ tractor-trailer. Moreover, the dashcam footage does not establish that defendant driver caused the accident by moving into plaintiff’s lane of traffic when it was not safe to do so. Richards v Walls, 2025 NY Slip Op 02889, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Where an affidavit submitted to support a summary judgment motion has been translated, it is not admissible unless it is accompanied by the translator’s affidavit attesting the the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the translation.

Practice Point: The unsafe-lane-change statute, Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128(a), does not apply unless there are two or more clearly marked lanes of travel.

 

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