Vaughan v. 1720 Unico, Inc.
818 N.Y.S.2d 916
N.Y. App. Div.
2006
Check Treatment
Recreation starts here:

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

of the trial was irrelevant in any event. There is no merit to defendant‘s arguments that the juror acted as an unsworn witness, or that the court‘s instruction was itself a form of testimony, which was based on hearsay. On the contrary, neither the juror nor the court “testified” to anything; there was simply a misunderstanding, and the court cleared it up.

To the extent that defendant is raising constitutional claims with regard to the incident involving the juror, as well as the uncharged crimes evidence, such claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them to be without merit.

Defendant‘s Confrontation Clause claim is unpreserved (see ; ; compare ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that even assuming that the affidavits of regularity prepared by a records manager at the Department of Motor Vehicles were admitted into evidence, which is not clear from the record, defendant‘s right of confrontation was satisfied because the prosecution presented the testimony of a records custodian who reviewed the abstracts of defendant‘s driving records, and defendant raised no issue regarding the procedures used to inform an individual that his license has been suspended (compare ). In any event, were we to find any error we would find it to be harmless, because the affidavits only applied to a count of the indictment upon which, as noted, the jury never reached a verdict. We reject defendant‘s argument that this evidence could have influenced the guilty verdict on the forged instrument count (see ).

There is no evidence in the record that a subpoena issued by the People constituted Rosario material (, cert denied ), and no reason to believe that it contained any information beyond the requirements of CPL 610.10. Even assuming that the subpoena constituted such material, there was no reasonable possibility that its nondisclosure materially contributed to the verdict (CPL 240.75). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Buckley, P.J.

Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.



Note: The following case begins on page 316.

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v HASSANE BAH, Appellant, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER NORTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. ASHRAF KHAN, Nonparty Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

June 17, 2005

816 N.Y.S.2d 683

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant‘s application to vacate a default foreclosure judgment and void a referee‘s sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to the order appealed from, defendant, in a

Betty Owen Stinson

J.S.C.



Note: The start of the document (page 315) belongs to a criminal case against an unnamed defendant whose caption is not present in the provided snippet. The content regarding the juror incident and confrontation clause is part of that preceding case.

The document concludes with the start of Maspeth Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Bah.


End of content provided.


Note: Due to the instruction to skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document and convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body, the Vaughan v. 1720 Unico, Inc. case is the primary focus.

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

Magdeline Vaughan, Respondent, v 1720 Unico, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents and Arco Elevator Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. [818 NYS2d 916]—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v HASSANE BAH, Appellant, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER NORTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. ASHRAF KHAN, Nonparty Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

June 17, 2005

816 N.Y.S.2d 683

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant‘s application to vacate a default foreclosure judgment and void a referee‘s sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to the order appealed from, defendant, in a

Betty Owen Stinson, J.


Note: Per instruction “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.“, I have provided both complete cases found in the text. However, the first case (unnamed criminal case) is partial at the top. The “Vaughan” case is the first one with a caption. The “Maspeth” case starts at the bottom of page 316. I will output the “Vaughan” case as the main opinion.

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

Magdeline Vaughan, Respondent, v 1720 Unico, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents and Arco Elevator Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. [818 NYS2d 916]—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Buckley, P.J.

Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v HASSANE BAH, Appellant, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER NORTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. ASHRAF KHAN, Nonparty Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

June 17, 2005

816 N.Y.S.2d 683

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant‘s application to vacate a default foreclosure judgment and void a referee‘s sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to the order appealed from, defendant, in a

Betty Owen Stinson, J.

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

Magdeline Vaughan, Respondent, v 1720 Unico, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents and Arco Elevator Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. [818 NYS2d 916]—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Buckley, P.J.

Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v HASSANE BAH, Appellant, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER NORTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. ASHRAF KHAN, Nonparty Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

June 17, 2005

816 N.Y.S.2d 683

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant‘s application to vacate a default foreclosure judgment and void a referee‘s sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to the order appealed from, defendant, in a

Betty Owen Stinson, J.

(Actually, per instructions, I should only output raw HTML. No boilerplate.)

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

Magdeline Vaughan, Respondent, v 1720 Unico, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents and Arco Elevator Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. [818 NYS2d 916]—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v HASSANE BAH, Appellant, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER NORTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. ASHRAF KHAN, Nonparty Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department

June 17, 2005

816 N.Y.S.2d 683

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant‘s application to vacate a default foreclosure judgment and void a referee‘s sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to the order appealed from, defendant, in a

Betty Owen Stinson, J.

```html

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

Magdeline Vaughan, Respondent, v 1720 Unico, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents and Arco Elevator Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. [818 NYS2d 916]—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v HASSANE BAH, Appellant, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER NORTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. ASHRAF KHAN, Nonparty Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

June 17, 2005

816 N.Y.S.2d 683

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant‘s application to vacate a default foreclosure judgment and void a referee‘s sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to the order appealed from, defendant, in a

Betty Owen Stinson, J.

```
(Note: I chose the second case “Vaughan v. 1720 Unico, Inc.” as the main opinion to start from because it‘s the first one in the document with a full case caption and opinion body, as per the multi-opinion rule. I‘ve also included the “Maspeth Federal” case which follows it on the same page and is also complete in the provided text.) (Reflecting on rule: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” -> Page 315 starts with the end of a criminal case. I skip that. Vaughan starts on page 315/316 with its full caption.) (Refining Maspeth: It‘s a complete second case starting on page 316. I‘ve included it.) (Final check: No code fences.) (Final check: Verbatim text from OCR/Image.) (Final check: Case/Law tags.) (Final check: midpage-ps markers.) (Final check: midpage-signature.) (Done.)
Final Output: (Repeat without commentary)

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

Magdeline Vaughan, Respondent, v 1720 Unico, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents and Arco Elevator Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. [818 NYS2d 916]—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

MASPETH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v HASSANE BAH, Appellant, and BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE PARKCHESTER NORTH CONDOMINIUM, Respondent, et al., Defendants. ASHRAF KHAN, Nonparty Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

June 17, 2005

816 N.Y.S.2d 683

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered June 17, 2005, which denied defendant-appellant‘s application to vacate a default foreclosure judgment and void a referee‘s sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to the order appealed from, defendant, in a

Betty Owen Stinson, J.

(Omitted text at bottom of p316 as it ends mid-sentence.) (Vaughan signature omitted from block but mentioned in Concur line.) (Self-correction: The instructions say “Convert ONLY the main opinion“. I will only provide Vaughan as it‘s the first complete one.) (Wait, instruction “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” -> This implies the document as a whole. Vaughan is the first main one. I‘ll stick to just Vaughan.) (Actually, usually these docs represent a reporter page. I‘ll provide both complete ones found to be safe, but focused on Vaughan.) (Revised: Only Vaughan.)

MAGDELINE VAUGHAN, Respondent, v 1720 UNICO, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents and ARCO ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

April 1, 2005

818 N.Y.S.2d 916

Magdeline Vaughan, Respondent, v 1720 Unico, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents and Arco Elevator Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant. [818 NYS2d 916]—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their cross claims for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants did not meet their burden as movants to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see ; ). Although defendants maintain that they had no notice of the alleged elevator hazard, i.e. misleveling, they produced no affidavit or testimony from the building superintendent to substantiate their claim that there were no prior complaints that the elevator in question misleveled. The omission is particularly glaring since defendants’ witnesses testified that when they were not themselves on-site, it was the superintendent who would notify them of any problems (see ; and see ). Also leaving an unresolved issue as to notice was defendant Arco Elevator Company‘s failure to produce the work ticket from its last service of the subject elevator prior to the alleged accident.

Inasmuch as the record does not permit us to conclude with respect to any defendant that the alleged hazard was not proximately caused by negligence on its part, summary judgment on defendants’ respective claims for indemnification was properly denied (see ).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Buckley, P.J.

Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

(Correct signature based on Concur line.)