You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, and the motion to treat the dismissal motion as a summary judgment motion should not have been granted. The motion should not have been treated as a summary judgment motion because it was premature. The motion should not have been granted as a dismissal based on documentary evidence because the affidavits submitted by the defendants do not constitute “documentary evidence” within the meaning of the CPLR:

The record demonstrates that the defendants’ pre-answer motion was made less than two months after the action was commenced, and that the plaintiff has had no opportunity to conduct discovery. Further, the defendants seek summary dismissal on the basis of facts asserted in their affidavits about which the plaintiff has no personal knowledge. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is correct that a summary judgment motion would be premature … . Therefore, the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) should not have been converted into a motion for summary judgment … . * * *

“While a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” …  by showing that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff “is not a fact at all” and that “no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . * * *

The affidavits submitted by the defendants, which merely contained conclusory denials of the facts asserted by the plaintiff in the complaint, as well as bare factual assertions regarding their use and occupancy of the subject premises, did not demonstrate that “a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all” and that “no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . Russo v Crisona, 2023 NY Slip Op 04438, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: Although a pre-answer motion to dismiss can be converted to a motion for summary judgment, to do so here was premature. Affidavits generally will not be enough to warrant granting a motion to dismiss. Affidavits are not “documentary evidence.”

 

, ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND RELIED ON A DISPUTED FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice actions should not have been granted. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent was not properly treated for a stroke. The defendants’ experts did not address all the allegations in the bills of particulars and relied on a disputed fact:

… [T]he expert physician for the defendants …, failed to address all of the specific allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars … . Because [the] affirmation relied upon a disputed fact, specifically that the decedent’s condition was improving … , it was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that.[defendants] did not deviate or depart from accepted medical practice or that such deviation or departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries … . Hiegel v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 04434, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice action, at the summary judgment stage, the defense experts must address all the allegations in the bill of particulars and may not rely on facts which are disputed.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S PHYSICAL CONDITION WAS IN CONTROVERSY, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO THE MEDICAL RECORDS CONCERNING SEXUALLY-TRANSMITTED DISEASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not waive the physician-patient privilege and, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to defendant’s medical records which relate to sexually-transmitted disease:

“A party seeking to inspect a defendant’s medical records must first demonstrate that the defendant’s physical or mental condition is ‘in controversy’ within the meaning of CPLR 3121(a)” … . “Even where this preliminary burden has been satisfied, discovery may still be precluded where the information requested is privileged and thus exempt from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(b)” … . Once the physician-patient privilege is validly asserted, it must be recognized, and the information sought may not be disclosed unless it is demonstrated that the privilege has been waived (see CPLR 3101[b]; * * *

… [I]n order to effect a waiver, a defendant must affirmatively assert the condition ‘either by way of counterclaim or to excuse the conduct complained of by the plaintiff'” … . * * *

The record was insufficient to establish that the defendant voluntarily disclosed any information to the plaintiff or other third parties which would have served as a waiver of privilege … . Hausman v Smith, 2023 NY Slip Op 04457, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: Even where a party’s physical condition is in controversy, the physician-patient privilege may preclude discovery of medical records concerning a condition which was not affirmatively asserted by that party.

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been precluded from presenting expert evidence at trial. The Second Department noted that there is no rigid time requirement for the notice of the intent to present expert testimony and plaintiff was provided with the nature of the expert’s opinion prior to setting the trial date:

“CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) requires a party, upon request, to identify the expert witnesses the party expects to call at trial” … . However, CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) “does not require a response at any particular time or mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute” … .

Here, the defendant served his expert notice prior to a trial date being set, and thus it was not untimely … . Further, the notice was not deficient. It identified the expert witness, indicated that he was a vocational expert, and included the expert’s qualifications. Although the notice did not include the expert’s opinion and grounds for that opinion, that information was in the draft report that was received by the plaintiff prior to the trial date being set (see CPLR 3101[d]).

The defendant also complied with the requirements set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.16(g) by disclosing his expert witness shortly after the expert had been retained … and serving the expert report more than 60 days before trial (see 22 NYCRR 202.16[g][2]). Giovinazzo-Varela v Varela, 2023 NY Slip Op 04441, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: There is no strict time-limit for providing notice of the intent to present expert evidence and the nature of that evidence. Here defendant provided plaintiff with timely notice and the expert evidence should not have been precluded.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; ONLY EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES WAS PRESENTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant shopping mall in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the oily patch in the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell. Plaintiff testified she saw the oily patch on the way into the mall and slipped and fell an hour later. The defendant presented evidence of its general cleaning and inspection practices, but did not demonstrate when the are was last cleaned or inspected:

To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice”… .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall . The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she saw the oily patch on the ground of the parking lot on her way into the shopping mall, approximately an hour before she slipped and fell after exiting the mall. The defendant’s property manager only testified about the defendant’s general cleaning and inspection procedures. Armenta v AAC Cross County Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04355, Second Dept. 8-23-23

Practice Point: For years slip and fall cases were reversed on this ground (no proof when the area was last cleaned or inspected) every week, now the reversals have slowed to a trickle but still …

 

,

DEFENDANT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 18, TO DRIVE HIS LAMBORGHINI WHILE DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT LOST CONTROL AT 180 MPH, STRUCK A GUARD RAIL, WAS EJECTED AND DIED FROM HIS INJURIES; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT, RAISED BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE WHICH RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S USE OF THE CAR UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined negligent entrustment causes of action should not have been dismissed. Defendant owned a high performance car (a Lamborghini) and allowed plaintiff’s decedent, who was 18, to drive it. Plaintiff’s decedent apparently lost control of the car at 180 mph, struck a guard rail, was ejected and died from his injuries. Defendant was a passenger at the time of the accident:

“The tort of negligent entrustment is based on the degree of knowledge the supplier of a chattel has or should have concerning the entrustee’s propensity to use the chattel in an improper or dangerous fashion” … . To establish a cause of action under a theory of negligent entrustment, the defendant must either have some special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to the person to whom a particular chattel is given which renders that person’s use of the chattel unreasonably dangerous, or some special knowledge as to a characteristic or defect peculiar to the chattel which renders it unreasonably dangerous … . “An owner of a motor vehicle may be liable for negligent entrustment if [he or she] was negligent in entrusting it to a person [he or she] knew, or in exercise of ordinary care should have known, was not competent to operate it” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligent entrustment. Although the decedent’s possession of a driver license is a factor to be considered, the defendant nevertheless failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he had special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to the decedent which rendered his use of the Lamborghini unreasonably dangerous … . Shepard v Power, 2023 NY Slip Op 04330, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: Here there was a question of fact, raised by plaintiff’s expert, whether defendant’s allowing plaintiff’s decedent, 18, to drive defendant’s Lamborghini constituted negligent entrustment. Plaintiff’s decedent lost control at 180 mph, crashed and died from his injuries.

 

,

PETITIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SON ACTUALLY SEXUALLY ABUSED THE DAUGHTER TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON MOTHER’S LEAVING THE DAUGHTER UNDER THE SON’S SUPERVISION; THE DAUGHTER’S ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED WERE DEEMED SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED BY HER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SEX AND PORNOGRAPHY; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, over a detailed and comprehensive dissent, determined the neglect petition was supported by the evidence. It was alleged that mother left her young daughter in the care of her 15-year-old son despite concerns about the son’s sexual behavior. Family Court held the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) was required to, but did not, prove the son sexually abused his sister. Family Court also held that the sister’s claims her brother sexually abused her were not corroborated. The dissent agreed with Family Court. The majority held ACS was not required to prove the alleged sexual abuse took place and the sister’s claims of sexual abuse were corroborated by her knowledge about sex:

A finding of neglect is warranted when a parent allows the child to be harmed or placed in substantial risk of harm … . A parent, who, by willful omission, fails to protect a child, and as a consequence places the child at imminent risk of harm, demonstrates a fundamental defect in understanding the duties and obligations of parenthood and creates an atmosphere detrimental to the physical, mental, and emotion well-being of the child … . Here, ACS contended that the mother neglected the child because, despite her knowledge of the son’s sexually inappropriate behavior, the mother failed to provide proper care and supervision for the child by leaving the child alone with the son. * * *

This Court has found that evidence of a change in the demeanor of a child, sexual references by a child which are not age appropriate, and detailed, consistent out-of-court statements of sexual abuse can be sufficient to corroborate a child’s out-of-court statements of sexual abuse … . For example, in Matter of Osher W. (Moshe W.) (198 AD3d 904), this Court determined that, “‘[a]lthough the mere repetition of an accusation does not, by itself, provide sufficient corroboration, some degree of corroboration can be found in the consistency of the out-of-court repetitions'” … . Here, the child’s statements to school personnel, her godmother, and the caseworkers were consistent and detailed about the sexual activity that the son had engaged in with her. In addition, both the mother’s acknowledgment at the hearing that the son admitted to her that he watched pornography in the child’s presence and the son’s admission to the first caseworker that he had his own pornography account directly corroborated the child’s statements that the son watched pornography in her presence. The child’s knowledge of sexual behavior despite her age—her depiction to school personnel of the son’s pumping motion with his penis and her discussion of sex, which she called “polo” to the first caseworker, describing it as where “a man and a woman they don’t have any clothes on and they put their private parts into each other,” was further corroboration of her out-of-court statements about the son’s sexual abuse of her. Moreover, the records submitted into evidence demonstrate that the child, who had been happy and talkative at the hospital, became withdrawn and quiet when asked about the sexual abuse. Matter of Jada W. (Fanatay W.), 2023 NY Slip Op 04318, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: This decision discusses in depth the proof requirements for neglect based upon a mother’s leaving her daughter under the supervision of her son, despite concerns about the son’s sexual behavior (here it was not necessary to prove the sexual abuse actually occurred).

Practice Point: In addition, the decision discusses in depth the nature of proof sufficient for corroboration of a child’s allegations of sexual abuse (here the child’s knowledge about sex was deemed sufficient corroboration).

 

, ,

A PROPOSED LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT BY THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action had not revoked the acceleration of the mortgage debt and the action was therefore time-barred:

… [I]t is undisputed that the mortgage debt was accelerated on February 20, 2008, by the commencement of the 2008 foreclosure action … . Thus, absent an affirmative act of revocation during the ensuing six-year period, the statute of limitations to commence a new action to foreclose the mortgage debt expired on February 20, 2014 (see CPLR 213[4]). Contrary to the finding of the Supreme Court, the January 2013 proposed loan modification did not constitute an affirmative act of revocation sufficient to de-accelerate the mortgage debt. Not only did the January 2013 proposed loan modification fail to clearly and unequivocally indicate that the acceleration was being revoked and the loan was returned to installment status, but it was contingent on the Gardners’ [plaintiffs’] acceptance of the proposed loan modification as well as their successful completion of a trial period, neither of which occurred … . Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, it failed to establish that the plaintiffs are barred from obtaining a judgment in their favor under the doctrine of unclean hands … . Gardner v Wells Fargo Bank N.A.., 2023 NY Slip Op 04304, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: Commencing a foreclosure action accelerates the debt and starts the statute of limitations. The acceleration can be explicitly revoked to stop the running of the statute. But the bank’s offering a loan modification is not an explicit revocation.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, AND THE AFFIDAVIT QUOTED FROM THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the band did not prove defendant defaulted on the note in this foreclosure action. The affidavit which discussed the relevant business records (apparently quoting from them) was hearsay. The business records themselves were not submitted:

While the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff made the requisite showing that the affiant was familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures with respect to the payment history, the affiant failed to submit any business record substantiating the alleged default … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Christiana Trust v Corbin, 2023 NY Slip Op 04298, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: Where business records are necessary proof (here to prove defendant’s default in a foreclosure action), it is not enough to submit an affidavit quoting from the records, which is hearsay that will not support summary judgment. The records themselves must be authenticated and submitted.

 

, ,

THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ABSENT A FULL BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have dismissed the grandparents’ petition for visitation before holding a best interests of the child hearing:

… [T]he court erred in granting respondents’ motion and in terminating the hearing before petitioners had completed the presentation of their case … . “[E]ven where . . . a grandparent has established standing to seek visitation, ‘a grandparent must then establish that visitation is in the best interests of the grandchild . . . Among the factors to be considered are whether the grandparent and grandchild have a preexisting relationship, whether the grandparent supports or undermines the grandchild’s relationship with his or her parents, and whether there is any animosity between the parents and the grandparent’ ” … . Visitation and “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry’ ” … , “[u]nless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child[‘s] best interests” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that, “[a]bsent a[ full] evidentiary hearing, . . . the court here lacked sufficient evidence . . . to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the [children]’s best interests” … . We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion, reinstate the petitions, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a full evidentiary hearing on the petitions. DeMarco v Severance, 2023 NY Slip Op 04284, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The grandparents’ petition for visitation should not have been dismissed absent a full best interests of the child hearing.

 

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