You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants raised a valid “fraud in the inducement” defense to the action seeking payment on an executed promissory note. Defendants executed the note to purchase protein powder from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs described the powder as having 23 to 25 grams of protein per 33/5 grams of powder. After the purchase defendants had the powder tested which revealed the powder contained a significantly lower percentage of protein:

“When an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only . . . , the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint” (CPLR 3213). Therefore, “[t]o prevail on [their] motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint based on a promissory note, plaintiff[s] w[ere] required to present evidence that defendant[s] executed the note and defaulted thereon” … . Plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie burden by supplying the note at issue, signed by [defendant], and evidence of defendant’s failure to pay; therefore, the burden shifted to defendants to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to liability … . …

Fraud in the inducement is a defense to the enforcement of a promissory note … , and, as such, defendants were required to “allege that (1) the plaintiff made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the plaintiff knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the defendant to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury” … . * * *

Generally, “what constitutes reasonable reliance is always [a] nettlesome” inquiry best left to the trier of fact … . Furthermore, “[s]ummary judgment is a drastic remedy that should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of triable issues of fact” … . Panessa v Lederfeind, 2024 NY Slip Op 05252, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Fraud in the inducement is a valid defense to an action for summary judgment based upon an instrument for the payment of money only (CPLR 3213), here a promissory note.

 

, ,

CLAIMANT-INMATE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN HER CUBICLE IN A DORMITORY WITHOUT DOORS WHILE THE CORRECTION OFFICER (CO) GUARDING THE DORMITORY WAS ASLEEP; CLAIMANT PRESENTED ADEQUATE PROOF THE ASSAULT WAS FORESEEABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant-inmate in this negligent supervision action presented sufficient proof the sexual assault by another inmate was foreseeable. Claimant was in a dormitory with cubicles and no doors. A male inmate crawled into claimant’s cubicle when the correction officer (CO) guarding dormitory was asleep:

… [T]he question is not what the State actually knows, but what it should have known, i.e., whether defendant has constructive notice … . There was a preponderance of evidence that defendant was aware that this claimant was at risk of sexual assault because defendant’s own sexual victimization risk screening procedures, and placement in the 10-1 dorm’s PREA cube as a result of her complaints about harassment immediately before the sexual assault, identified her as being in a class of individuals vulnerable to the risk of sexual assault … . Moreover, placement in the PREA cube generally, and in this case specifically, is a tacit acknowledgement that individuals who are identified as vulnerable and live in a general population dormitory consisting of a communal sleeping area, must have more protection at night. A sleeping CO negates this added protection at this critical time. Thus, it was not necessary for defendant to have notice that COs generally, or this CO specifically, slept during shifts. It is not unreasonable to expect that COs are conscious, alert and attentive while on duty monitoring an open-floor-plan dormitory of incarcerated individuals in a maximum-security prison. R.S. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05253, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Here there was sufficient proof that the sexual assault by another inmate was foreseeable. Claimant was recognized as vulnerable to sexual assault, was placed in a dormitory cubicle with no door, and the correction officer assigned to guard the dormitory was asleep. The fact that the CO’s falling asleep may not have been foreseeable was not the determinative issue.​

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR A COURT-OF-APPEALS REVIEW OF AN APPELLATE DIVISION’S WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE ANALYSIS IS EXPLAINED; HERE DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION, BASED ENTIRELY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, WHICH AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two concurring opinions and an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the Appellate Division properly conducted a weight-of-the-evidence review of an entirely circumstantial manslaughter prosecution (affirming the conviction):

Jorge Baque’s five-month-old daughter was found unresponsive in her crib at 6:30 a.m. on July 30, 2016. Despite efforts to resuscitate her, she was declared dead. An autopsy revealed that the victim had sustained injuries consistent with abusive head trauma and violent shaking. Baque was arrested and charged with manslaughter in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. * * *

The question before us is whether the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in conducting its review of the weight of the evidence, in this purely circumstantial case. Weight of the evidence review is a “unique” power afforded to intermediate appellate courts, and one that they exercise regularly … . It requires the Appellate Division to “independently assess all the proof” and “to serve, in effect, as a second jury” … . * * *

This Court reviews a weight of the evidence determination to assess whether the “order and writings of the intermediate appellate court manifest a lack of application of [its] review power” … . “[W]e cannot review a weight of the evidence challenge unless the intermediate appellate court manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle” … . We have never required the Appellate Division to “manifest its weight of evidence review power by writing in all criminal cases” … . Indeed, the Appellate Division “could have summarily affirmed without explicitly addressing the merits of defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence” … . People v Baque, 2024 NY Slip Op 05244, CtApp 10-24-22

Practice Point: This decision is a rare Court-of-Appeals review of an appellate division’s weight-of-the-evidence affirmance of a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The unique criteria for review by the Court of Appeals is explained.

 

, ,

THE BANK SUFFICIENTLY PROVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in this foreclosure action, over a detailed dissent, determined plaintiff had demonstrated compliance with the RPAPL 1304 mailing requirements for the notice of foreclosure. The dissent argued the notice requirements were not strictly complied with. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but it should be consulted for its discussion of the proof a bank must present on the “RPAPL 1304” notice requirements to warrant summary judgment. U.S. Bank N.A. v Romano, 2024 NY Slip Op 05235, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: For at least a decade, the appellate courts have reversed summary judgment in foreclosure cases because proof of the bank’s compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was found deficient. Here, over a strong dissent, the proof was deemed adequate. The detailed discussion of the proof requirements, in the majority decision and in the dissent, is instructive on the issue.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF GUILT MADE WHEN HIS APPEAL WAS PENDING CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING FOR “FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY” (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined defendant should not have been assessed 10 points for failure to accept responsibility because his denial of guilt was made when his appeal was pending:

… [T]he court should not have assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility. Defendant’s denials of guilt were made at the time his appeal from his underlying conviction was pending. “Requiring defendant to accept responsibility could potentially result in his admissions being used against him in any retrial, violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination” … . People v Wallace, 2024 NY Slip Op 05189, First Dept 10-22-24

Practice Point: A denial of guilt made when defendant’s appeal was pending and there was a chance for a retrial cannot be used against him in a SORA risk-level assessment.

 

, , ,

UNDER THE FACTS, THE PRO SE DEFENDANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE BY THE PEOPLE’S ACCESS TO HIS RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS; DEFENDANT EFFECTIVELY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Appellate Division, determined (1) the fact that the People had access to defendant’s recorded jail phone calls did not, under the facts, deprive the pro se defendant of his right to present a defense, and (2) the defendant effectively waived his right to counsel:

Under the particular facts of this case, however, we conclude that defendant’s right to present a defense was not impaired by the monitoring of his jail phone calls. Defendant was out on bail for nearly the entire two years between indictment and his mid-trial remand, including more than six months while representing himself, giving him ample time to prepare his witnesses. Even after remand, there is no dispute that defendant had means other than the recorded phone lines to prepare his witnesses. Indeed, the record establishes that defendant’s daughter visited him in jail at his request before he called her to testify so that they could continue their trial preparations in person. The court was proactive in protecting defendant’s rights, permitting him time in the courtroom to speak to each of his witnesses in private before their testimony. In addition, when defendant asked to adjourn for the weekend to prepare his witnesses, the court stated that it would take the matter up in the morning, at which time it was agreed that defendant would testify for most of the remainder of the week. The court also noted that defendant had been assigned a legal advisor and an investigator, both of whom had the expertise and wherewithal to assist in the preparation of the defense.

Although the People’s monitoring of an incarcerated pro se defendant’s jail phone calls may have a chilling effect on the defendant’s trial preparation that threatens the right to present a defense—particularly if the People are able to make use of the information in the calls in the pending trial—the facts here are otherwise. Defendant became aware that the People were listening to his phone conversations only after he had presented the direct testimony of his daughter and an expert. Aside from himself, the only remaining defense witnesses provided character testimony and little else that could be considered relevant to the case. Thus, any chilling effect here was negligible. People v Dixon, 2024 NY Slip Op 05176, CtApp 10-22-24

Practice Point: Under the facts of this case, the pro se defendant was not deprived of his right to present a defense by the People’s access to his recorded jail phone calls.

Practice Point: Here the defendant effectively waived his right to counsel.

 

, ,

AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed:

In the course of the investigators’ questioning of defendant, they transitioned away from asking defendant about his flight from the police and turned to the underlying domestic violence incident. When they began focusing on how he had first encountered the victim earlier that morning, defendant expressed that he did not wish to discuss that subject. After the investigators continued with a couple of follow-up questions on this topic, defendant stated, “that’s what I want a lawyer for.” He then went on to say that he was scared to talk and noted that he could still cooperate with the District Attorney at a later time.

… [We conclude that defendant clearly invoked his right to counsel. Although the first two alleged invocations … did not constitute requests for an attorney, they nevertheless serve to indicate that the subject of obtaining a lawyer was on defendant’s mind while he was being questioned. … [O]nce the interrogation moved to the underlying incident, defendant “articulated his desire to have counsel present such that a reasonable police officer should have understood that he was requesting an attorney” … . Accordingly, any statements made by defendant thereafter should have been suppressed … . People v Lipka, 2024 NY Slip Op 05153, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s statements “that’s what I want a lawyer for,” he was “scared to talk,” and he “could still cooperate later” constituted an unequivocal request for counsel. Statements made thereafter should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INTOXICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the denial of defendant’s request for the intoxication jury instruction was reversible error:

… County Court improperly refused to instruct the jury as to the defense of intoxication. “An intoxication charge is warranted if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” … . The charge should be given when there is “evidence of the recent use of intoxicants of such nature or quantity to support the inference that their ingestion was sufficient to affect defendant’s ability to form the necessary criminal intent” … . It is true that more is required than “a bare assertion by a defendant that he was intoxicated,” but the threshold to demonstrate entitlement to the charge is nevertheless “relatively low” … . We find that the evidence presented at trial regarding defendant’s consumption of alcohol during the afternoon and evening on the date in question easily surpassed this low bar. People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 05158, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The evidence of defendant’s consumption of alcohol was more than sufficient to warrant instructing the jury on the intoxication defense.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the denial of defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction was reversible error:

As held by the Court of Appeals in People v Boone (30 NY3d 521 [2017]), “when identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification” … . Here, at the close of proof, defendant requested that the jury be given a cross-racial identification instruction pursuant to Boone. County Court denied his request noting, among other things, that in the present case, the identifying witness … knew defendant. County Court, however, misinterpreted the Boone standard and erred in denying defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction upon defendant’s request for same … . People v Alexander, 2024 NY Slip Op 05160, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Where the witness who identifies the defendant as the perpetrator and the defendant appear to be of different races, defendant’s request for a cross-racial identification jury instruction must be granted.

 

, ,

IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department reversed defendant’s “attempted criminal possession of a weapon” and “falsifying business records” convictions as against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, when attempting to purchase a shotgun, answered “no” to the question whether he was subject to a court order. Although restraining orders were produced by the People, there was no proof any restraining order “was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate” as required by 18 USC 922 (g) (8) (an element of the charged offenses):

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant attempted to buy a shotgun knowing his possession of same was “prohibited by law” (Penal Law § 265.17 [1]). People v Rock, 2024 NY Slip Op 05162, Third Dept 10-17-24

 

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