You are here: / Evidence
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S GRABBING AT HIS WAISTBAND AND RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION, THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT’S STOPPING HIS CAR IN THE STREET AND AGGRESSIVELY APPROACHING A WOMAN IN ANOTHER CAR PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the police had reasonable suspicion defendant was about to commit a crime when he grabbed at his waistband and ran. The police saw the defendant stop his car in the street and aggressively approach another car on foot. When the police told him to stop, he ran. The majority agreed with the dissent that defendant’s grabbing at his waistband did not provide reasonable suspicion he had a weapon. Rather the police saw enough to have reasonable suspicion the defendant was about to commit a crime when he aggressively approached the other car:

We agree with defendant that his arm movements directed at his waistband and his flight would not, without more, justify police pursuit. As the court determined, however, it was reasonable for the officers to suspect that defendant was about to commit a crime because he approached the woman in an aggressive manner with clenched fists while yelling at her. The officers thus properly ordered defendant to stop and could have lawfully frisked him had he not run away. Because the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, we conclude that the subsequent pursuit was also supported by reasonable suspicion, especially considering that, immediately following the stop, defendant turned his back to the officers, grabbed at his waistband, and then fled on foot, leaving his vehicle in the middle of the street with its driver’s door open.

From the dissent:

… [D[efendant’s digging at his waistband, flight, and leaving his car in the street “do not provide additional specific circumstances indicating that defendant was engaged in criminal activity” … . While defendant’s actions, “viewed as a whole, [may have been] suspicious, . . . there is nothing in this record to establish that the officers had a reasonable suspicion” that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime … . People v Cleveland, 2023 NY Slip Op 03597, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Both the majority and the dissent agreed that defendant’s grabbing at his waistband and running did not provide the police with reasonable suspicion. The majority found that defendant’s stopping his car in the street and aggressively approaching a woman in another car with clenched fists provided the police with reasonable suspicion and justified pursuit. The dissent disagreed.

 

, ,

PRECEDENT DID NOT REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ADMIT, UNDER SANDOVAL, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SIMILAR TO THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL; RATHER THAT PRECEDENT ONLY HELD EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED SOLELY BASED ON SIMILARITY; THE PREJUDICE VERSUS PROBATIVE-VALUE ANALYSIS SHOULD STILL BE APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge was not bound by Fourth Department precedent to admit, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior possession of a weapon conviction in this criminal possession of a weapon prosecution. The Fourth Department has held that evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely based on similarity with the offense on trial. But here the Fourth Department made clear that the prejudice versus probative-value analysis should still be applied where the crimes are similar:

… [T]he court cited this Court’s decision in People v Stanley (155 AD3d 1684 [4th Dept 2017] …) and advised defense counsel that she “may want to discuss [her arguments] with the Fourth Department,” explaining that Stanley was “their ruling, not my ruling” and that it was “bound by [the Fourth Department’s] rulings.” …

Stanley, however, stands for the proposition that “[c]ross-examination of a defendant concerning a prior crime is not prohibited solely because of the similarity between that crime and the crime charged” … . That means that a Sandoval application by the People should not be automatically denied merely because a prior conviction is similar in nature to the present offense, and certainly does not mean that a court must automatically grant the People’s application. There was nothing in Stanley that “bound” the court in this case and, to the contrary, the court was required to make its own discretionary balancing of the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction against its potential for undue prejudice … . People v Colon, 2023 NY Slip Op 03583, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Precedent holding that, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely because it is similar to the crime on trial does not mean that similar crimes should automatically be admitted. The prejudice versus probative-value analysis should be still be applied to similar crimes.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED MOTOCROSS RIDER, ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HIS BIKE UPON LANDING AFTER A JUMP; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE LANDING AREA CAUSED HIM TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE BIKE ON A PRIOR PRACTICE RUN BUT DID NOT INVESTIGATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff, an experienced motocross rider, assumed the risk of injury when using defendant’s motocross track. Plaintiff alleged a pothole where riders landed after a jump was filled with a talcum-powder-like substance which caused him to lose control of the bike. The majority concluded plaintiff was aware of the risk associated with the material used to fill the pothole:

Considering that Fritz [plaintiff] testified that on both jump landings the back end of his bike “kicked up,” that he hit the same pothole and that he had to work to recover the bike, we are satisfied that he was aware of the potential for injury on that jump’s landing … . Fritz v Walden Playboys M.C. Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03524, Third Dept 6-29-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff testified he was aware that some aspect of a jump-landing area of the motocross track caused him to lose control of his bike briefly in a prior practice run but he did not investigate. The majority concluded he therefore assumed the risk associated with a pothole filled with talcum-like powder in the landing area. Plaintiff lost control of the bike in the area of the filled pothole on his second jump.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FAILED TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INQUEST; THE APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE NEGLECT OF THEIR ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the application for damages in this personal injury action should not have been denied due to plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to submit medical records for more than a year after the inquest. Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by their counsel’s inaction:

Although plaintiffs’ counsel had timely subpoenaed the relevant medical records and those records were apparently delivered to the subpoenaed records room in the courthouse, they were not available at the inquest. Supreme Court therefore reserved decision to give plaintiffs time to submit evidence supporting their damages claim. After a period of more than one year in which plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide the requested information, Supreme Court issued an order … denying the application for damages on the ground of failure of proof.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the underlying default. Although we share the court’s concern regarding the extended delay and the inattentiveness of plaintiffs’ former counsel, counsel’s neglect in pursuing his clients’ action should not be permitted to redound to the clients’ detriment … . Counsel did not deny that he failed to respond to communications from the court, but explained that the delays were due to a problem in his firm’s case management system, which did not provide reminders … . These circumstances present a type of law office failure for which the clients should not be penalized , particularly in light of the strong public policy preference for deciding cases on the merits … . In addition, defendants defaulted and therefore will not be prejudiced … . Rosario v General Behr Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03560, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the attorney’s failure to submit medical records requested by the judge after an inquest was not the type of law office failure for which plaintiffs should be penalized. The judge should not have dismissed the application for damages based on counsel’s neglect.

 

, ,

THE PROOF THE FORECLOSURE NOTICE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage company in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance the the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he copy of the notice contains no indication that it was sent by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail … . Nor is there “[a] copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute” … . … [The affiant] did not attest to having any personal knowledge of, or familiarity with, [the company’s] actual standard mailing procedures during the relevant time period, which were designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Accordingly, [the affiant’s] assertion in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent to the defendant on March 14, 2013, at the address of the mortgaged premises, “by registered or certified and first-class mail,” was unsubstantiated and conclusory … . Ditech Servicing, LLC v McFadden, 2023 NY Slip Op 03452, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Yet another instance of the failure to prove the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF STATED A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEYS’ ALLEGEDLY UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN PROSECUTING AN ACTION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR, RESULTING IN THE INABILITY TO COLLECT THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging legal malpractice should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys’ delays in prosecuting the action against a contractor resulted in plaintiff’s inability to collect a judgment against the contractor. By the time the judgment was acquired, the contractor had sold its assets and moved out of the country:

… [A]ccepting the facts alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession by engaging in a pattern of undue delay in their prosecution of the underlying action, including by allowing the underlying action to be marked off the active calendar on two occasions and by failing to comply with certain court-ordered deadlines. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants’ negligence proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages in that their delays in prosecuting the underlying action prevented him from being able to collect on the judgment that was eventually entered against the contractor … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff’s allegations relating to proximate cause, including the nature and value of the contractor’s alleged assets and when they were disposed of, were not impermissibly speculative or conclusory … . Ofman v Tenenbaum Berger & Shivers, LLP, 2023 NY Slip Op 03471, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated a legal malpractice claim based upon the attorneys’ alleged unreasonable delays in prosecuting an action against a contractor, resulting in the inability to collect the judgment. The contractor sold its assets and moved out of the country.

 

, , ,

SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined plaintiff’s surgery, even after a defense request for a pre-surgical physical exam, is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions. In this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after a defense demand for a pre-surgery medical exam:

… [T]he First Department has recently rejected the proposition that a spoliation analysis can apply in such a situation. In Gilliam v Uni Holdings, LLC (201 AD3d 83), the First Department held “that the condition of one’s body is not the type of evidence that is subject to a spoliation analysis” … . After noting that “[s]poliation analysis has long been applied to a party’s destruction of inanimate evidence,” the First Department concluded that the “state of one’s body is fundamentally different from inanimate evidence, and medical treatment, including surgery, is entirely distinct from the destruction of documents or tangible evidence which spoliation sanctions attempt to ameliorate. To find that a person has an ‘obligation,’ to preserve his or her body in an injured state so that a defendant may conduct [a medical examination], is antithetical to our belief in personal liberty and control over our own bodies” … . * * *

We agree with the First Department’s conclusion in this regard, for the reasons stated in its opinion. It is not reasonable to require a plaintiff to delay medical treatment, and potentially prolong his or her suffering, solely to allow a defendant to examine the plaintiff’s body in a presurgical state. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has not “refuse[d] to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fail[ed] to disclose information which . . . ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126). Fadeau v Corona Indus. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03453, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after the defense demand for a pre-surgery physical exam. Joining the First Department, the Second Department held that surgery is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions.

 

, , ,

THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW AND VIOLATED THE “SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the second motion for summary judgment made by the bank in this foreclosure action was not a valid motion to renew and violated the “successive summary judgment rule:”

“While a court has discretion to entertain renewal based on facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, the movant must set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the information in the first instance. When no reasonable justification is given for failing to present new facts on the prior motion, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal” … . … [P]laintiff failed to provide any justification for its failure to present the new evidence supporting the second motion as part of its prior motion.

“Even considered as a successive motion for summary judgment, such a motion ‘should not be entertained in the absence of good cause, such as a showing of newly discovered evidence'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to present good cause.

The second motion also did not fit within the “narrow exception” to the successive summary judgment rule … . This narrow exception permits entertainment of a successive motion when it is “substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts” … . Here, entertaining a second summary judgment motion involved review of multiple disputed issues, including whether the plaintiff established the defendants’ default, the plaintiff’s compliance with the contractual condition precedent, and the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1304. Thus, rather than eliminating a burden on the Supreme Court, the court’s consideration of the second motion actually imposed an additional burden on the court. “‘Successive motions for the same relief burden the courts and contribute to the delay and cost of litigation. A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance'” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gittens, 2023 NY Slip Op 03373, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: The failure to explain why available evidence was not submitted in the first summary judgment motion will result in denial of a motion to renew.

Practice Point: The second motion here violated the “successive summary judgment motion” rule. The criteria are explained.

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A]lthough the affidavit of the servicing agent stated that the 90-day notice was mailed to the defendant by certified mail and regular first-class mail, the affiant did not attest to having personally mailed the notices, nor that she was familiar with the mailing procedures of the entity that mailed the notices and that such procedures were designed to ensure that the notices were properly addressed and mailed …  The plaintiff also failed to submit documentation from the United States Postal Service proving the first-class mailing of the 90-day notice to the defendant … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Smith, 2023 NY Slip Op 03372, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Once again, failure to demonstrate the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was properly mailed results in reversal of summary judgment.

 

, ,

IN A PROCEEDING SEEKING FINDINGS TO ENABLE A CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) THE SUBMISSION OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES OR DEATH CERTIFICATES IS NOT REQUIRED; THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined this proceeding seeking findings to enable the child to apply for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) should not have been dismissed on the ground that certified copies of birth certificates and/or death certificates were not submitted:

… [P]etitioner … commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to be appointed as the guardian of the child. Thereafter, the petitioner moved for the issuance of an order … making specific findings so as to enable the child to petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for special immigrant juvenile status (hereinafter SIJS) pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J). … Family Court dismissed the petition and denied the petitioner’s motion. …

… [T]here is no express requirement to submit certified copies of birth certificates or death certificates in a proceeding such as this pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a) … . …[S]ince the court dismissed the petition without conducting a hearing or considering the child’s best interests, we remit the matter to the Family Court … . Matter of Anuar S. A. O. (Yari C. B. M. Lizeth O. M.), 2023 NY Slip Op 03353, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Certified copies of birth certificates or death certificates need not be submitted in a proceeding for findings enabling a child to apply for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). Here the proceeding should not have been dismissed on that ground and the matter was remitted for a determination on the merits.

 

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