You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE TRANSFERRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD DIVEST DEFENDANT OF STANDING; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AND THE TIME FOR SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD NOT PASSED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT RETAINED AN INTEREST IN DEFENDING AGAINST A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO ARGUE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined defendant in this foreclosure action had standing to argue the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was jurisdictionally defective, despite defendant’s transfer of the subject real property during the foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff had not waived a deficiency judgment and the time for seeking one had not elapsed. Therefore defendant still had an interest in defending the action, i.e., defendant had standing to contest the notice. The First Department rejected defendant’s notice argument:

It is well settled that a defendant lacks standing to defend the action where it transfers the mortgaged property to a third party during the foreclosure action and the plaintiff waives its right to a deficiency judgment * * *.

… [I]n this case, plaintiff chose not to waive a deficiency judgment and its time to move for a deficiency judgment has not yet expired. Because [defendant] is subject to a potential deficiency judgment and is a debtor on the underlying mortgage, he has an interest in defending the action notwithstanding that he transferred the mortgaged property … and as a result, no longer has the right to redeem the property. Nationstar Mtge. LLC v Vassi, 2026 NY Slip Op 02375, First Dept 4-21-26

Practice Point: If the time for seeking a deficiency judgment in a foreclosure has not passed, a defendant who transferred the subject property to a third party during the foreclosure proceedings still has standing, i.e., defendant has an interest in defending against a deficiency judgment. However, if the plaintiff had waived a deficiency judgment defendant would have lost standing.

 

,

A POLICE OFFICER INTERVIEWED AN EYEWITNESS AND CREATED A “PROBABLE CAUSE I-CARD” FOR THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT; THE ARRESTING OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE ARRESTING OFFICER SAW AND RELIED ON THE I-CARD, WHICH THE “FELLOW OFFICER” RULE REQUIRES FOR A LAWFUL ARREST; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the motion to suppress defendant’s statement should have been granted because the People failed to prove the arrest was based upon the “fellow officer” rule, An officer who interviewed a witness created a probable-cause I-card which was posted to inform other police officers of the probable cause for defendant’s arrest. But the People did not prove the arresting officer relied on the I-card as the basis of the arrest:

Whether the People presented sufficient evidence of a communication under the fellow officer rule is a fact-specific question that requires examination of the record before the suppression court. Here, the People presented no direct evidence that prior to arresting the defendant, the arresting officers were aware of the I-card and relied upon it in effectuating the defendant’s arrest. The arresting officers did not testify at the suppression hearing, nor did the detective testify about the circumstances of the arrest. * * *

We conclude that the People failed to provide evidence sufficient to show a communication between the officers based on the I-card, and therefore failed to meet their burden at the suppression hearing to establish probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. Absent the requisite showing of probable cause, the defendant’s statement must be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. People v Palacios, 2026 NY Slip Op 02360, CtApp 4-16-26

Practice Point: Here the required proof for the application of the “fellow officer” rule was not presented by the People. To prove the arrest was based on a “probable cause I-card” the People were required to show the arresting officer saw the I-card and relied on it. The arresting officer did not testify, so there was a failure of proof requiring suppression of the defendant’s statement.

 

, ,

THE RENTAL-CAR DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RENTAL CAR WAS NOT NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE “GRAVES AMENDMENT,” THE RENTAL CAR DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the evidence submitted by the rental car company (A-1 Cars) did not eliminate a question of fact whether the car was negligently maintained. Plaintiff driver was rear-ended by the rental car:

“Under the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if the owner (i) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (ii) engaged in no negligence or criminal wrongdoing” … . Thus, under the circumstances of this case, in order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint under the Graves Amendment, A-1 Cars was required to show, prima facie, (1) that it owned the subject vehicle, (2) that it engaged in the trade or business of leasing or renting motor vehicles, (3) that the accident occurred during the period of the lease or rental, and (4) that there is no triable issue of fact as to any allegation of negligent maintenance contributing to the accident … .

Here, the only evidence submitted by A-1 Cars aside from an uncertified police accident report, which was inadmissible … , was an affidavit from its “Claims Administrator,” Mariley Mendez. The conclusory, unsupported affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, A-1 Cars’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the basis of the Graves Amendment. Among other things, Mendez’s averments that she “check[ed]” the vehicle prior to the rental and that there were no records of mechanical problems with the vehicle were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the vehicle was properly maintained and in good repair at the time of the subject accident … . Joseph v Marmolejos, 2026 NY Slip Op 02256, Second Dept 4-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what a rental-car company must prove with respect to maintenance of the rental car to take advantage of immunity from liability pursuant to the Graves Amendment.​

 

,

IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE FLOOR WAS WAXED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE NEGLIGENCE; THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THE WAX WAS NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this “smooth, slippery, shiny floor” slip and fall case. The fact that a floor has been polished does not establish negligence. Plaintiff must show the wax or polish was negligently applied:

“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . “A prima facie case of the negligent application of wax may be established by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present on the floor” … . “In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was no negligent application of wax to the floor … . Brener v Queens Blvd. Extended Care Facility Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02240, Second Dept 9-15-26 

Practice Point: A smooth, slippery, shiny floor is not actionable in a slip and fall case unless there is evidence wax was negligently applied.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED MOTHER TO “STAY AWAY” FROM FATHER AND CHILD; FATHER ASKED THE POLICE FOR HELP IN SERVING THE ORDER AND PICKING UP THE CHLID; MOTHER WOULD NOT LET THE POLICE INTO HER HOME; DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ADVISED THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT ENTER MOTHER’S HOME; THE NEXT DAY MOTHER MURDERED THE CHILD; THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIISMISSED; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, determined the negligence and wrongful death action against the municipal defendants should not have been dismissed, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the notice of claim or leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Plaintiff father was granted sole custody of his child in an order which required mother to “stay away” from father and the child. Plaintiff asked the police for help in serving the order on mother and picking up the child. The police attempted to serve the order, but mother slammed the door and would not let them in. District attorneys were then contacted for advice but determined the police could not enter mother’s home. The next day the police were called to mother’s home where the child was found deceased. Mother was convicted of murdering the child. The Second Department held that there was a special relationship between plaintiff and the municipality and the municipality was not entitled to governmental function immunity: The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:

To establish the existence of a special relationship, a plaintiff is required to prove four elements, also referred to as “the Cuffy factors” or “the Cuffy test,” namely:

“(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 …). * * *

Generally, the “decision to arrest an individual involves the exercise of discretion . . . and thus is cloaked with governmental immunity” … . However, here, in the face of what was, in effect, a temporary order of protection, the defendant police officers became, at a minimum, “obligated to respond and investigate” … . Therefore, the Village defendants have not conclusively established that their actions were purely discretionary … . Boyd v Village of Mamaroneck, 2026 NY Slip Op 02239, Second Dept 4-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes a “special relationship” between a plaintiff and a municipality and when a municipality is protected from liability in negligence by governmental function immunity.

 

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT BASED ON “FAMILIAL STATUS” AND “CAREGIVER” DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO THE NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination under the Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed in this wrongful termination action:

… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to plaintiff’s familial and caregiver status causes of action under the State HRL [Human Rights Law], which prohibits discrimination based on “familial status,” including against “any person who . . . has a child or is in the process of securing legal custody” of a child (Executive Law §§ 292[26][a], 296[1][a]), and the City HRL, which prohibits discrimination based on “caregiver status” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[1][a]). On July 11, 2016, the day before DSC’s [defendant’s] decision to put plaintiff on probation, plaintiff attended a hearing in a custody proceeding regarding his daughter. According to plaintiff, Richard Greenberg, DSC’s co-chief investment officer, questioned whether plaintiff “was sure [he wanted] to do this” (that is, to participate in custody proceedings) and encouraged him to “[g]ive up on [his] daughter.” In addition, at plaintiff’s year-end review meeting, which plaintiff recorded, Greenberg gave him negative feedback about his job performance and stated, “I just want to know . . . is your heart still in it, you know? . . . I mean you’ve got all these things going on.”

Additionally, in January 2017, Jane Park, the firm’s director of business development and client relations, authored a memo for Smith and Greenberg that discussed whether to disclose to firm clients that a more junior investment analyst had received firm equity while plaintiff had not. The memo posited telling clients, as one option, that plaintiff “is going through some personal issues which make[] the current timing less than ideal for ownership disbursement.” Park testified at her deposition that she was referring to the fact that plaintiff was “distracted” because of his divorce and custody fight. …

Taken together, the evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that defendants’ proffered reasons for denying plaintiff equity and ultimately terminating him were “false, misleading, or incomplete,” and that plaintiff was, in fact, terminated on the basis of his familial or caregiver status … . Mezinev v Donald Smith & Co., 2026 NY Slip Op 02209, First Dept 4-14-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “familial status” and “caregiver” discrimination in the context of an alleged wrongful termination of employment pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED MOTHER A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; THE SERIOUSNESS OF MOTHER’S CONDUCT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE JUDGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not granted a suspended judgment in this neglect proceeding:

The court abused its discretion in granting the mother a suspended judgment. A court should not vacate a neglect finding except upon a determination that doing so serves the child’s best interests, including “consideration of a parent’s ability to supervise a child and eliminate any threat of future abuse or neglect” … . “[A]t its core, a suspended judgment affords a respondent the opportunity to correct his or her neglectful actions” … . Courts considering whether to grant a suspended judgment should examine four factors: “(1) the respondent’s prior child protective history; (2) the seriousness of respondent’s offense; (3) respondent’s remorse and acknowledgment of the abusive or neglectful nature of his or her act; and (4) respondent’s amenability to correction, including compliance with court orders” (id. at 12 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, Family Court failed to consider the second, third and fourth factors adequately. The trial court addressed the first factor by noting that the mother had no prior involvement with the child welfare system. As to the second factor, although the mother admitted inflicting excessive corporal punishment on [the child] on more than one occasion and causing him injury, Family court’s decision does not acknowledge the seriousness of the mother’s conduct. Matter of N.G. (Angelica T.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02198, First Dept 4-14-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors Family Court must consider before granting a suspended judgment in a neglect proceeding. Here it was not enough that mother had no prior involvement with the child welfare system. The seriousness of her conduct must be considered.​

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTS DID NOT CREATE A DUTY OWED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR WHO ALLEGED A STREET LIGHT WAS NOT WORKING; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM;” IT MERELY FAILED “TO ACT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD” WHICH DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the breach of a duty owed to him by defendant contractor. Defendant had entered a contract with defendant municipality to maintain street lights. Plaintiff, a pedestrian struck by a car, alleged the accident was in part caused by a street light which was not working. The complaint, however, did not allege defendant contractor had “launched an instrument of harm,” as opposed to merely a failure to act as an instrument of good:

… [T]he facts alleged do not establish that the defendant launched an instrument of harm, as the defendant is not alleged to have “created or increased the risk [to the plaintiff] beyond the risk which existed even before [the defendant] entered into [its] contractual undertaking” … . The defendant’s purported negligence in failing to restore illumination to a darkened intersection amounts to, at most, a failure to act as an “instrument for good, which is insufficient to impose a duty of care” upon the defendant in the absence of contractual privity with the plaintiff … . Moreover, the contract submitted by the defendant in support of its motion conclusively demonstrated that the defendant’s contractual undertaking was “not the type of ‘comprehensive and exclusive’ property maintenance obligation” that would “entirely absorb” the Town’s duty “to maintain the premises safely” … . Weiss v Fran Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02147, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what “launching an instrument of harm,” as opposed to “failing to act as an instrument of good,” means in the context of a duty owed by a party to a contract to an injured nonparty.

 

,

THE GUARDIAN’S ILLNESS PRECIPITATED THE PETITION TO REMOVE HER; UPON HER RECOVERY THERE WAS NO JUST CAUSE FOR HER REMOVAL; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support the removal of the incapacitated person’s (Frank’s) wife, Zita, as the guardian of the person and property of Frank. The removal petition, brought by Frank’s daughter, Tara, was dismissed:

In December 2022, the wife was temporarily hospitalized, which precipitated the petition … to remove her as guardian of the person and property of the incapacitated person. …

The determination “to remove a guardian of the person and property of an incapacitated person pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . The “overarching concern remains the best interest of the incapacitated person” … . “A guardian may be removed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 when the guardian fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in removing the wife as guardian of the person and property of the incapacitated person (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35). The wife’s temporary medical crisis that had precipitated the petition was resolved, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the wife’s actions regarding the incapacitated person’s care were a just cause for removal … . Matter of Frank M. (Zita C.–Tara M. M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02116, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Other than the guardian’s illness, there was no support for her removal as guardian. Her recovery, therefore, warranted dismissal of the removal petition.

 

, , ,

A MORE PROBING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MENTALLY DISABLED DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ALFORD PLEA, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by Alford plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined a more probing inquiry by the judge was required to determine whether the plea was knowing and intelligent. Defendant had been found incompetent to stand trial twice before being found mentally competent to stand trial:

While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights” … . “People with intellectual disabilities possess diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. . . . These traits render people with intellectual disabilities uniquely vulnerable to injustice within criminal proceedings. . . . [Therefore], a court must account for [a defendant’s] diminished mental capacity in ensuring that any waiver of constitutional rights is knowing, intelligent and voluntary” … .

As defendant was twice determined to be incompetent to stand trial and had received four years of treatment before he was deemed competent to participate in his defense, County Court was aware of defendant’s intellectual disabilities. Notwithstanding the determination that defendant was competent to stand trial, the third psychiatric evaluation report cast serious doubts on defendant’s ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea. The report indicates that on defendant’s most recent cognitive assessment he “achieved a [f]ull-[s]cale IQ of 59, indicative of abilities consistent with a [m]ild [i]ntellectual [d]isability.” Additionally, he “achieved an [a]daptive [b]ehavior [c]omposite of 68, consistent with [the] upper end of the ‘low’ range of daily living skills.” The psychologist further noted that defendant was “rather immature in his understanding of the severity of his charges and the chances that he could have significant consequences — such as jail time.” More importantly, during the evaluation, defendant repeatedly alleged that his counsel had reassured him that he will not be going to jail and, in fact, “express[ed] strongly held beliefs that he will not be sent to jail due to his personal circumstances of having a disability and being young when the offenses were allegedly committed. These beliefs are likely related to his relative youth and mental health difficulties, several of which make it difficult for [defendant] to relate to others successfully, accept social norms and expectations, or respect interpersonal boundaries. These beliefs are unlikely to change with additional education or training.”

Under these circumstances, “[a] more probing inquiry was warranted here to ensure that defendant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving, given his significant intellectual disability” … . As there is no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea, the judgment of County Court convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant thereon should be reversed, the plea vacated and the matter remitted for further proceedings … . People v Oldorff, 2026 NY Slip Op 02004, Third Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Where the defendant is mentally disabled and has previously been found incompetent to stand trial, before accepting a guilty plea, a probing inquiry by the judge is required to ensure the defendant understands the consequences.

 

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