You are here: / Evidence
, ,

No Proof Misrepresentation Caused Decedent to Disinherit Daughter

In reversing a jury verdict finding that a will had been procured by fraud, i.e., a misrepresentation made to the decedent by one daughter, Zucker, against the other daughter, Ranaldo, resulting in the disinheritance of Ranaldo, the Second Department wrote:

…[T]here was no evidence presented at trial to demonstrate that Zucker conveyed the alleged misrepresentation to the decedent with the intention of inducing the decedent to alter her estate plan …, or that the alleged misrepresentation in fact induced the decedent to change her testamentary plan. There was no evidence presented to show that the decedent considered or discussed disinheriting Ranaldo when she met with her attorney two weeks after the alleged misrepresentation. The decedent’s attorney, who drafted the will, testified that the first time the decedent mentioned disinheriting Ranaldo was at a subsequent meeting, approximately eight months after the alleged misrepresentation. In the absence of any evidence to establish that Zucker conveyed the alleged misrepresentation to the decedent with the intention of inducing the decedent to alter her estate plan, and that the alleged misrepresentation in fact induced the decedent to change her testamentary plan, no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury that the will and the first amendment to the Trust were the product of fraud … . Accordingly, the jury’s verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence … .  Matter of Ranaldo, 2013 NY Slip Op 01834, 2011-03624, 2011-03625, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

,

Criteria for Dismissal of Cause of Action Based on Documentary Evidence Explained 

The Second Department, in reversing the dismissal of causes of action in a complaint, explained the criteria for dismissal based on documentary evidence:

A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be appropriately granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, to the extent that the sponsor’s submissions constituted “documentary evidence” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) …, they failed to utterly refute the cooperative’s allegations … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the sponsor’s motion which were to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). North Shore Towers Apts. Inc. v Three Towers Assoc., 2013 NY Slip Op 01812, 2012-00848, Index No 11834/10, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13​

 

,

Deliberate Avoidance of Service of Process 

The First Department determined the defendants, who deliberately attempted to avoid notice of the summons and complaint, did not raise an issue of fact in the face of the affidavits of the process server:

Relief under CPLR 317 is not warranted where, as here, defendants’ failure to obtain proper notice was the result of a deliberate attempt to avoid such notice … . The individual defendant averred that neither he nor the corporate defendant received actual service of the summons and complaint, or of the supplemental summons and amended complaint, or of any of the notices served by plaintiff following commencement of the action. However, this conclusory denial of receipt is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to proper service in the face of plaintiff’s submission of affidavits from a process server, which constitute prima facie evidence of proper service … .  Pina v Jobar, USA, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 01794, 9570N, 300756/08, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

, ,

Sanctions for Discovery Noncompliance and Spoliation

The First Department concluded preclusion and an adverse inference charge were appropriate discovery sanctions for defendant’s failure to produce documents and the apparent destruction of evidence:

Having been conditionally ordered to produce all correspondence …, and the transcripts of the audio tapes of meetings …, in order to successfully oppose plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions, defendant had to demonstrate (1) a reasonable excuse for the failure to produce the requested items and (2) the existence of a meritorious claim or defense in order to relieve itself from the dictates of that order … . Defendant did not satisfy these requirements. Defendant’s history of noncompliance with the court’s prior discovery orders supports the motion court’s finding that defendant’s actions were willful and contumacious …. The court providently granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order precluding defendant from offering any evidentiary proof with respect to the transcription of committee meetings and/or correspondence … and defendant in defense and/or opposition to plaintiffs’ prosecution of their bad faith claim at trial … .

Plaintiffs also made a prima facie showing that defendant had either intentionally or negligently disposed of the transcript of the … meeting and that the spoliation of this critical evidence compromised its ability to prosecute their bad faith action against defendant … . The motion court did not abuse its discretion in finding that certain evidence may have existed, but was not produced by defendant either because it was destroyed or withheld. Although plaintiffs moved to strike the answer, the court imposed the reasonable lesser sanction of an adverse inference charge, which will prevent defendant from using the absence of these documents at trial to its tactical advantage … .  General Motors Acceptance Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 01774, 109668/06, 9272, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

, ,

Failure to Object to Curative Instruction Precludes Appeal

A curative instruction regarding admitted evidence was requested by the defendant and the court gave the requested instruction to the jury.  The defendant did not object to the instruction and did not seek a mistrial.  Therefore, the curative instruction “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction,” precluding appeal on that issue.  People v Mendez, 47, KA 09-01194, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

, ,

In SORA Context, Mild Mental Retardation Is Not a “Mental Disability”

In the context of a SORA determination, the Fourth Department noted that proof the victim had been diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded did not demonstrate the victim suffered from a “mental disability” within the meaning of the Correction Law:

We agree with defendant, however, that the People failed to present the requisite clear and convincing evidence that the victim of the underlying crime suffered from a “mental disability” (see generally Correction Law § 168-n [3]), and thus the court erred in assessing 20 points against him under risk factor 6. Although the People presented evidence that the victim was diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded, “[t]he law does not presume that a person with mental retardation is unable to consent to sexual [activity], . . . and proof of incapacity must come from facts other than mental retardation alone” (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 86). Here, the remaining evidence in the record relating to the victim’s capacity failed to establish that she was “incapable of appraising the nature of [her] own sexual conduct” (id. at 87; see People v Easley, 42 NY2d 50, 55-57; cf. People v Jackson, 70 AD3d 1385, 1385, lv denied 14 NY3d 714).  People v Green, 254, KA 11-00973, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Violation of Probation Petition May Be Based Upon Hearsay

The Fourth Department determined that a “violation of probation” petition need not include non-hearsay allegation establishing every element of the violation charged:

…[A]lthough Family Court Act § 360.2 (2) specifically requires that VOP petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings contain “[n]on[]hearsay allegations . . . establish[ing], if true, every violation charged,” there is no corresponding requirement in CPL article 410.  At most, CPL 410.70 (2) requires that the court “file or cause to be filed . . . a statement setting forth the condition or conditions of the sentence violated and a reasonable description of the time, place and manner in which the violation occurred.”There is no requirement that the statement contain nonhearsay allegations.

In any event, we agree with the People that, were there such a requirement in the CPL, the reasoning of Matter of Markim Q. (7 NY3d 405, 410-411) would apply such that the lack of nonhearsay allegations in the VOP petition would not constitute a jurisdictional defect. “A VOP petition, [unlike an original accusatory instrument], is not the foundation of the court’s jurisdiction. It does not commence a new proceeding, but is simply a new step in an existing one” (id. at 410). People v Julius, 175, KA 11-01384, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

 

 

,

Old Age, Infirmity, Dementia and Medical Opinion Did Not Demonstrate Lack of Testamentary Capacity

In affirming the dismissal of objections to a will, the Fourth Department explained that proof the decedent suffered from old age, infirmity and dementia was not necessarily inconsistent with testamentary capacity, and, where there is direct evidence the decedent had the necessary ability to understand, even medical opinion is of minor importance:

“It is the indisputable rule in a will contest that ‘[t]he proponent has the burden of proving that the testator possessed testamentary capacity and the [Surrogate] must look to the following factors: (1) whether []he understood the nature and consequences of executing a will; (2) whether []he knew the nature and extent of the property []he was disposing of; and (3) whether []he knew those who would be considered the natural objects of h[is] bounty and h[is] relations with them’ ” … .“ ‘Mere proof that the decedent suffered from old age, physical infirmity and . . . dementia when the will was executed is not necessarily inconsistent with testamentary capacity and does not alone preclude a finding thereof, as the appropriate inquiry is whether the decedent was lucid and rational at the time the will w made’ ”… . “Where there is direct evidence that the decedent possessed the understanding to make a testamentary disposition, even ‘medical opinion evidence assumes a relatively minor importance’ ”….  In the Matter of Alibrandi, 136, CA 12-00963, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Suspended Sentence for Non-Payment of Support Could Not Be Revoked Without Hearing

The Fourth Department ruled that Family Court could not revoke a suspended jail sentence for non-payment of support by the father without giving the father the chance to rebut the allegations against him:

The Support Magistrate previously had issued an order “on consent” in November 2011 (November order), setting forth that the father admitted that he willfully violated the February order and finding him in willful violation of the February order. The Support Magistrate imposed a sentence of four months in jail but suspended the sentence on the condition that the father did not miss two consecutive support payments. *  *  *

Although the court had the discretion to revoke the suspension of the jail sentence, the court erred in doing so without first affording the father “an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses . . . on the issue whether good cause existed to revoke the suspension of the sentence” (Matter of Thompson v Thompson, 59 AD3d 1104, 1105, quoting Family Ct Act § 433 [a] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ontario County Dept. of Social Servs. v Hinckley, 226 AD2d 1126, 1126). “No specific form of a hearing is required, but at a minimum the hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” (Thompson, 59 AD3d at 1105 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “ ‘[I]t is well settled that neither a colloquy between a respondent and Family Court nor between a respondent’s counsel and the court is sufficient to constitute the required hearing’ ” (id.). Here, there was only the admission of nonpayment by the father’s attorney, which was insufficient (see id.), and there was no opportunity for the father to present evidence rebutting the allegations against him.  In the Matter of Davis v Bond, 281, CAF 12-00553, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Refusal to Allow Carrier to Call Witnesses Warranted Reversal

n an opinion by Justice Rose, the Third Department reversed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board because the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge refused to allow the carrier to further develop the record (by calling witnesses). The Court stated:  “It is axiomatic that both the claimant and the employer or its workers’ compensation carrier are entitled to introduce witnesses in compensation proceedings…”.  In the Matter of Mason v Glens Falls Ready Mix, et al, 514744, 3rd Dept. 3-14-13

 

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