You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

AFFIDAVITS NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY CERTIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS HAVE NO PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE AFFIDAVITS FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF RENTING TRUCKS SUCH THAT THE GRAVE’S AMENDMENT APPLIED, AND FAILED TO PROVE THE TRUCK WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined defendant lessor of the truck which struck plaintiff’s vehicle did not present sufficient evidence that it was in the business of renting trucks, such that the Grave’s amendment applied, or that the truck was properly maintained. The defendant attempted to show it was in the business of renting trucks with affidavits which referred to documents that were not attached. In addition, the papers did not demonstrate the truck was properly maintained:

… [Defendant] failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment under the Graves Amendment, which bars state law vicarious liability actions against owners of motor vehicles when (1) they are engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, (2) they leased the vehicle involved in the accident, (3) the subject accident occurred during the period of the lease or rental and (4) there is no triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s allegation of negligent maintenance contributing to the accident ,,, , ,,,

Neither affidavit sufficiently establishes the basis — personal knowledge or from identifiable business records — for the affiants’ knowledge of the contents of the affidavits. Therefore, they are of no probative value.

The documents submitted with the motion cannot be admitted as business records because they are not certified, and the affidavits do not lay a sufficient foundation for their admissibility … . Although an affidavit that is not based on the affiant’s personal knowledge may still serve to authenticate a document for its admissibility as a business record, as long as the affiant demonstrates sufficient personal knowledge of the document in question … , and the affidavit sufficiently establishes that the document falls within the business record exception to the hearsay rule … , here we are lacking both. The “acknowledgment of lease” letters — which refer to an unattached “previously executed Equipment Rental Agreement” — submitted with these affidavits are not certified as business records, nor do the affidavits lay a sufficient foundation for the letters’ introduction as business records. Without a proper foundation, these documents are not admissible. …

When a plaintiff seeks to hold a vehicle owner liable for the failure to maintain a rented vehicle, the owner is not afforded protection under the Graves Amendment if it fails to demonstrate that it did not negligently maintain the vehicle … , or to prove that it was not responsible for the maintenance and repair of the vehicle during the lease … .  Muslar v Hall, 2023 NY Slip Op 01063, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Affidavits must either be based upon the affiant’s personal knowledge or supported by certified business records. Here the affidavits did not show defendant was in the business of renting trucks and did not show the truck involved in the accident was properly maintained. Therefore the Grave’s amendment criteria were not proven and defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. The Grave’s amendment provides that the vehicle-owner who is in the business of renting vehicles will not be liable for an accident if the vehicle was properly maintained.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S CHEMICAL BURNS WERE CAUSED BY THE INTENTIONALLY WRONGFUL, SPONTANEOUS, UNFORESEEABLE ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES OVER WHOM DEFENDANT SCHOOL HAD NO CONTROL OR AUTHORITY; STUDENTS HAD APPARENLY PUT DRANO IN A WATER BOTTLE WHICH PLAINTIFF KICKED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE SCHOOL DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS LACK OF NOTICE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant charter school [Mission] did not have notice of the dangerous condition which allegedly caused plaintiff-student’s chemical burns. Plaintiff kicked a plastic water bottle which had Drano in it, called a Drano bomb. Plaintiff alleged school personnel knew or should have known other students were making the Drano bombs:

The court properly granted Mission’s summary judgment motion, even assuming that a triable issue exists as to whether plaintiff was participating in Mission’s afterschool program at the time she was injured. Plaintiff testified that, before she was injured, she had seen other children, who were not participating in Mission’s afterschool program, on a different basketball court in the public park pouring a liquid into a Poland Spring bottle, not a Vitamin Water bottle. Plaintiff theorizes that Mission’s staff should have observed the conduct of these children and intervened to stop them. However, plaintiff’s own testimony, on which Mission was entitled to rely to satisfy its prima facie burden on the summary judgment motion, established that the actions of the children — even indulging the speculative assumption that they created the Drano bomb that later injured plaintiff — were the intentionally wrongful, spontaneous, and unforeseeable acts of third parties over whom Mission had no control or authority … .

From the dissent:

Mission’s motion presented no evidence whatsoever from any of its employees, teachers, supervisors, or in the form of records from the afterschool program. Mission consequently failed to address, in the first instance, the issue of whether it had “notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury” … . Under the circumstances, Mission’s reliance on the testimony of other parties was insufficient to carry its prima facie burden. S. G. v Harlem Vil. Academy Charter Sch., 2023 NY Slip Op 01069, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Here the school successfully argued the plaintiff-student’s chemical burns were caused by the intentionally wrongful, spontaneous, and unforeseeable acts of other children over whom the school had no control. Plaintiff kicked a water bottle which had Drano in it (a Drano bomb). Two dissenters argued the school did not present sufficient evidence of its lack of notice.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION AS TRUE, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON UNSWORN INFORMATION FROM THE ATTORNEYS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed without holding a best interests hearing. The Third Department noted that Family Court should have accepted the facts alleged in the petition as true and should not have relied on unsworn information provided by the attorneys:

… [F]ather’s petition sufficiently alleged … changed circumstances that, if established at a hearing, would entitle him to a best interests review, including that the mother had thwarted the electronic communication to which he was entitled … , failed to keep him informed of certain health information pertaining to the child and, upon information and belief, was found to have neglected the child … . Even if such circumstances do not ultimately result in an award of joint legal custody as sought by the father, his petition also sought increased visitation and unsupervised parenting time. These changed circumstances, if established, would support a best interests review to determine whether such relief is warranted based upon the totality of the evidence. Matter of Ryan Z. v Adrianne AA., 2023 NY Slip Op 01032, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: In determining whether a best interests hearing is required when a petition for modification of custody is filed, the facts alleged must be accepted as true. The judge here should not have relied on unsworn information from the attorneys.

 

,

THE SUBSTANCE FOUND ON PETITIONER-INMATE’S PERSON WAS NOT TESTED OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED AS A DRUG; THE DRUG POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION, AS WELL AS THE SMUGGLING, DETERMINATIONS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, held the drug possession and distribution, as well as the smuggling, determinations should be annulled. A drug sniffing dog alerted to a substance on petitioner-inmate’s person but no testing or other identification of the substance was done:

At the prison disciplinary hearing, it was established that the suspected substance was not subjected to chemical testing, nor was there any evidence indicating that facility pharmacy or nursing staff inspected or visually identified the substance ,,, . Rather, the substance was visually identified as synthetic marihuana by the OSI K-9 officer. However, the regulation does not authorize an OSI officer to identify suspected substances as drugs. Similarly, testimony regarding the K-9 alerting to petitioner’s groin area did not suffice to comply with the regulation. While there was testimony that petitioner admitted that he possessed K2, this would, at most, establish a charge of possession of contraband, but not drug possession. Unlike a drug-related disciplinary charge, which requires compliance with the aforementioned identification procedures … , the prohibition on contraband merely depends on whether or not an item is authorized … . In light of the lack of compliance with regulatory procedures, the identity of the substance was not properly established …

As for the remaining charge of smuggling, this charge only requires that “any item” be smuggled in or out of the facility or from one area to another … , and does not require proof that the item was a drug or contraband. However, in finding petitioner guilty of this charge, the Hearing Officer expressly based his finding on the OSI K-9 officer’s conclusion that the substance was synthetic marihuana, and therefore must have been smuggled in from outside the facility. As noted above, this conclusion was flawed. Given that, and because there was no proof at the hearing that the substance in question was moved from one area to another, the finding as to this charge is also unsupported by substantial evidence and must be annulled. Matter of Then v Annucci, 2023 NY Slip Op 01037, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: The substance must be tested or otherwise identified by a professional as a drug before a drug possession or distribution determination against an inmate will be upheld.

, ,

HERE THE STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES WAS UNSUPERVISED IN GYM CLASS WHEN SHE WAS INJURED; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT SUCCESSFULLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE THAT MORE SUPERVISION OF THE STUDENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE PURPORTEDLY CONFLICTED WITH THE STUDENT’S “AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 504 PLAN” (WHICH DID NOT CALL FOR EXTRA SUPERVISION) AND THEREFORE EXTRA SUPERVISION WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO DISCRIMINATION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT FINDING THAT THE 504 PLAN DID NOT ACT AS A CEILING FOR THE LEVEL OF SUPERVISION TO BE AFFORDED THE STUDENT AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial, determined expert evidence and lay-witness testimony should not have been excluded from this negligent-supervision-of-a-student trial. The student had some physical disabilities and a “504 plan” had been developed for her pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plan did not explicitly call for extra supervision. The student was injured when she was practicing jumps in gym class while the teacher was working with other students. The school district successfully argued to the judge that any evidence that the “504 plan” was inadequate to protect the student amounted to discrimination because the plan did not call for extra supervision. That argument was rejected by the Third Department:

… [A] school district’s written 504 plan does not operate as a supervision ceiling in all respects and circumstances.The central purpose of Section 504 is to assure that students with disabilities receive equal treatment in relation to their peers … , that is, that they receive support, based on their individual needs, so that they may also meaningfully access a given educational experience … . This stands in stark contrast to defendant’s reliance upon federal antidiscrimination law as a shield from liability. Plainly put, if two kindergarteners have difficulty performing a skill in a mainstream physical education class, adequate support should be provided to both of them — not, illogically, only the one who does not have a 504 plan. Yet that is precisely what defendant’s argument devolves to. Jaquin v Canastota Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 01039, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Here the injured student had certain disabilities and the school district put in place a 504 Plan pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate for her disabilities. The plan did not call for extra supervision. The student was injured while unsupervised in gym class. The school district successfully argued evidence that more supervision was needed conflicted with the 504 plan. The argument was rejected and a new trial ordered.

,

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD BASED ON MOTHER’S DRUG USE WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT; ALTHOUGH FATHER DID NOT REPORT MOTHER’S DRUG USE TO HER PROBATON OFFICER, FATHER MADE EFFORTS TO INTERVENE RE: MOTHER’S DRUG USE DURING THE PREGNANCY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record did not support a finding that father (respondent) neglected the child based on mother’s drug use when she was pregnant:

Respondent argues that Family Court erred when it found that, knowing that the mother was abusing drugs while pregnant with the daughter, respondent failed to exercise a minimum degree of care when he failed to report the mother’s drug use to her probation officer In its decision, Family Court found that respondent made “some efforts to intervene as to the mother’s drug use,” by enrolling her in an inpatient drug treatment facility, attending drug treatment sessions and drug court proceedings with the mother and preventing her from residing with the son and limiting her contact with him. Indeed, the court stated that respondent had “failed to do the one thing that would have ensured that [the mother did] not have access to drugs while pregnant, reporting her to her probation officer,” and it found that this single failure constituted neglect. Under the circumstances of this case, we disagree.

Respondent testified that … he … learned that the mother had a warrant for her arrest due to her issues with probation. … [H]e and the mother agreed that the mother would engage in an inpatient treatment program to address her addiction and that she would then turn herself in to probation. … [F]our days after entering inpatient treatment, the mother signed herself out and absconded. … [P]etitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent failed to exercise a minimum degree of care required of a reasonable and prudent parent … . While respondent could have contacted the mother’s probation officer and reported her drug use, a warrant for the mother’s arrest was already in place, and respondent seemingly lacked any information to assist probation in locating her. Matter of Leo RR. (Joshua RR.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01041, second Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Father made efforts to intervene re: mother’s drug use during pregnancy. The record did not support a finding that father neglected the child because he did not report mother’s drug use to her probation officer.

 

, ,

​ THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT OFFERED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S MASSACHUSETTS CONVICTION CERTIFIED PURSUANT TO CPLR 4540; SECOND FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender, determined the proof of the Massachusetts conviction which was the basis for the second felony offender status was deficient:

… [T]he People offered a copy of a “warrant” transferring defendant from local custody to state prison, as well as a copy of defendant’s public docket report. Both documents reflect defendant’s conviction in Massachusetts of armed robbery, bear the seal of the Massachusetts Superior Court and contain the signature of a court official attesting that such documents are true copies. However, the People’s submissions “lacked the certificate, under seal, showing that the attestor was the legal custodian of the records and that this signature was genuine as required by CPLR 4540 [c]” …  As a result of such failure, we vacate defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender, as well as the resulting sentence, and remit this matter to County Court for a new second felony offender hearing, at which time the People will have an opportunity to overcome the technical deficiencies in their proof … . People v Caraballo, 2023 NY Slip Op 01029, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: To prove a foreign conviction the relevant document must be certified in accordance with CPLR 4540 (c).

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED THE RESIDENCE AS HAVING TWO ENTRANCE DOORS, ONE LEADING TO THE AREA WHERE THE INFORMANT SAW THE FIREARMS AND ONE LEADING TO A STAIRWAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR (WHICH THE INFORMANT HAD NOT VISITED), THE WARRANT WAS NOT SEVERABLE AND WAS THEREFORE OVERBROAD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the search warrant overly broad and suppressed the seized evidence. The warrant described the premises to be searched as having two exterior doors, one leading to the area described by the confidential informant who had seen firearms there, and the other leading to stairs to the second floor. The informant had never been upstairs and nothing was seized from upstairs. The issue was whether the part of the warrant which authorized the search of the upstairs could be severed from the part of the warrant describing the area visited by the informant. The court reasoned that severance would be justified if the warrant described two separate apartments. But because the warrant described the premises as a single residence, it was overbroad:

Unlike the warrant in Hansen [38 NY2d 17], which authorized the search of two obviously separate places—a home and a vehicle—the language of the warrant in this case was ambiguous, and failed to clearly delineate whether it authorized a search of a single residence or two separate residences. The warrant did refer to the premises as a “two-family home,” with a “right main entrance” that led to “a living room, a kitchen, and bedrooms,” and a “left main entrance,” which led to “a set of stairs that lead up to a living room, a kitchen and bedrooms,” which may have suggested that the building contained two separate apartments. Yet, the warrant referred to the premises as the “Subject Location” and “the residence,” and instead of using words like “apartment” or “unit,” it referred to the rooms on the first floor as being “at the residence,” and referred to the rooms on the second floor as being “at the rear of the residence.”

In light of this ambiguity, a reviewing court could not determine that the warrant authorized the search of two separate places without impermissibly engaging in “retrospective surgery, dehors the language of the warrant, [to] cut away the illegal portions of the area to be searched and by judicially revised description save evidence recovered from a more narrowly limited area” … . People v Capers, 2023 NY Slip Op 01011, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals has held that where a warrant describes two distinct areas to be searched, a vehicle and a residence for example, and the search of one of the areas was not supported by probable cause, the warrant may be severed. Here, although there were two entrances to the premises, it was described as a single residence and therefore was not severable.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD BEFORE DENYING MOTHER’S PETITION FOR IN-PERSON PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the denial of mother’s petition for in-person parental access was not supported by the record, in part because the judge did not conduct an in camera interview with the child:

The Family Court’s determination, in effect, denying that branch of the mother’s petition which was for in-person parental access lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. “The decision to conduct an in camera interview to determine the best interests of the child is within the discretion of the hearing court” … . Here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to conduct an in camera interview of the child, particularly given the mother’s testimony that the child’s fear of visiting her in person was due to outside influence … . The child is of such an age and maturity that his preferences are necessary to create a sufficient record to determine his best interests … . Matter of Badal v Wilkinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 00997, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here Family Court should have conducted an in-person interview with the child before denying mother’s petition for in-person parental access. The failure to conduct the interview was deemed an abuse of discretion.

,

AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A WITNESS TO THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT STATING THAT PLAINTIFF WAS BACKING UP AT THE TIME DEFENDANT’S CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S RAISED ONLY A QUESTION OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE FAULT WHICH WILL NOT DEFEAT PLANTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end traffic accident case should have been granted. The affidavit of a witness stating that plaintiff was backing up when defendant’s car struck it raised an issue of comparative negligence, which is no longer a bar to summary judgment:

“A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” … . As such, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . “A nonnegligent explanation includes, but is not limited to, sudden or unavoidable circumstances” … . “[V]ehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows” … . “A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability”… .

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred that his vehicle was at a full stop when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . The defendants submitted an affidavit … a witness to the accident … who stated that he saw the plaintiff’s vehicle backing up while the defendants’ vehicle was moving forward and, as a result, the front of the defendants’ vehicle made contact with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. … [The]statement that the plaintiff’s vehicle was backing up … was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact because that statement related only to the plaintiff’s comparative fault … . An v Abbate, 2023 NY Slip Op 00977, Second Dept 2-22-23

Same result (but no comparative negligence evidence) in another rear-end traffic accident case: Balgobin v McKenzie, 2023 NY Slip Op 00978, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here a witness to the rear-end traffic accident provided an affidavit stating plaintiff was backing up when defendant struck the rear of plaintiff’s car. The affidavit raised a question of plaintiff’s comparative fault which was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

 

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