You are here: / Evidence
, ,

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))

,

VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating defendant’s sentence of probation, determined the finding that defendant had violated a condition of probation was improperly based entirely on grand jury minutes, which constituted hearsay:

A finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant has violated a condition of probation … may not be based on hearsay evidence alone … . Here, on several occasions during the probation revocation hearing, the court indicated that its determination that defendant had violated probation by traveling outside the jurisdiction without permission, and by failing to lead a law abiding life, was based solely on the grand jury minutes related to his 2012 indictment (which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and did not result in a conviction) … . One of these statements, in which the court stated that “the government prevailed by the properly unsealed and complete [g]rand [j]ury minutes,” occurred directly after defense counsel explicitly argued that the court could not base a finding of a violation solely on the grand jury minutes, which constituted hearsay.

Based on this record, regardless of whether there was other evidence in the record that might have satisfied the requirement for “a residuum of competent legal evidence” … , we are compelled to find that the court’s determination was based on hearsay alone and therefore cannot stand. People v Hubel, 2018 NY Slip Op 01154, First Dept 2-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/GRAND JURY MINUTES (HEARSAY, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/PROBATION (VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))

,

EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS GANG ASSAULT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the proof of serious physical injury in this gang assault case was insufficient:

The evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the injuries sustained by the victim constituted serious physical injury (see Penal Law § 10.00[10]), an element of gang assault in the first degree … . Although there was testimony that the victim still had some physical effects of the assault at the time of trial, the evidence on this was limited and, in any event, the record before the jury did not show that the injury was such that a reasonable observer would find the victim’s appearance distressing or objectionable … . It is also undisputed that the victim’s injuries did not impair his general health … . People v Garay, 2018 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS GANG ASSAULT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS GANG ASSAULT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/PHYSICAL INJURY (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS GANG ASSAULT CASE (FIRST DEPT))

,

EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, PRESENCE WHEN CONSPIRACY DISCUSSED BY OTHER GANG MEMBERS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the appellate division, determined the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of conspiracy in the second degree. The defendant’s mere presence when the conspiracy was discussed by other gang members was not enough:

… [A]t the core of the People’s case is evidence of defendant’s presence at various gang meetings at which the crime intended was discussed by gang members other than defendant. Under the circumstances of this case, to conclude that defendant’s presence at such gatherings alone was sufficient to establish agreement to join a plot would be to equate his passive act of “being present” with the affirmative act of “agreeing” to engage in a criminal conspiracy discussed at those assemblies. The law does not contain a presumption of agreement based on sheer presence at a meeting at which a conspiracy is discussed … , and we share the view of the federal courts that mere “[k]nowledge of the existence and goals of a conspiracy does not itself make one a coconspirator” … . People v Reyes, 2018 NY Slip Op 01113, CtApp 2-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, PRESENCE WHEN CONSPIRACY DISCUSSED BY OTHER GANG MEMBERS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, PRESENCE WHEN CONSPIRACY DISCUSSED BY OTHER GANG MEMBERS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP))/CONSPIRACY (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, PRESENCE WHEN CONSPIRACY DISCUSSED BY OTHER GANG MEMBERS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP))

, ,

STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been denied. The evidence of a storm in progress was insufficient. The climatological analysis report submitted in the reply papers should not have been considered. There was no evidence when the sidewalk was last inspected prior to the fall:

… [T]he defendants submitted a copy of the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition, at which she testified that light rain began to fall about 15 minutes prior to her accident, and that no precipitation fell the day before the accident. The defendants also submitted a copy of the transcript of the deposition of the office manager [the occupant of the abutting property], who testified that she had no recollection of the weather conditions on the day of the accident. The office manager also did not know when the sidewalk was last inspected or what it looked like within a reasonable time prior to the accident. The defendants also submitted video footage and screen shots from a security camera, but this evidence was not probative because it did not clearly depict the surface where the plaintiff slipped. Finally, the defendants submitted a climatological analysis report which was not signed and notarized, and therefore not admissible … .

The defendants submitted a signed and notarized climatological analysis report with their reply papers. However, the Supreme Court should not have considered that report, as it was improperly submitted for the first time with the reply papers … . Brandimarte v Liat Holding Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01042, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the neglect finding:

​

… [W]e agree with the mother that the court erred in determining that she neglected the child inasmuch as the AFC  [attorney for the child] failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the “child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired” as a consequence of the mother’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care … . It is well established that “any impairment to the child[ ] must be clearly attributable to the unwillingness or inability of the mother to exercise a minimum degree of care toward’ [the child] . . . , rather than what may be deemed undesirable parental behavior’ ” … . “Indeed, the statutory test is minimum degree of care — not maximum, not best, not ideal” … . Here, the court concluded that, “on one hand, [the mother] may simply be a mother determined to protect her child. On the other hand, she may be a woman determined to cause emotional harm to the father of their child. In either case, the consequence of this course of action may be emotional harm to [the child]” (emphasis added). While the record establishes that the mother’s conduct has been troubling at times, “there is no indication in the record that the child was . . . impaired or in imminent danger of impairment of her physical, mental, or emotional condition as a result of any acts committed by [the mother]” … . Matter of Ellie Jo L.H., 2018 NY Slip Op 00934, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH 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