You are here: / / Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and...
, ,

Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff after trial was reversed by the First Department because: (1) plaintiff’s son, a notice witness who testified about the alleged defective condition at the core of the lawsuit, had not been identified before trial; (2) a missing witness charge re: a purported employee of the defendant was given in the absence of proof of the employee’s existence; and (3), the testimony of defense witnesses was erroneously precluded or limited.  Collazo v Riverbay Co-op, 2013 NY Slip Op 01904, First Dept. 3-21-13

 

You might also like
BIG APPLE MAP RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY WAS AWARE OF MANHOLE-SIDEWALK DEFECT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE CITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE CONVICTED ON A THEORY THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THIS ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S HAVING COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Is Not Identity Theft Where the Card Owner’s Identity Is Not Otherwise Assumed/Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Can Constitute Possession of Stolen Property
THE A-FRAME LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WHEN HE FELL WAS DEFECTIVE AND LABOR LAW 240(1) APPLIED ON THAT GROUND ALONE; EVEN IF THE LADDER HAD NOT BEEN DEFECTIVE, LABOR LAW 240(1) WOULD STILL APPLY BECAUSE THE LADDER WOBBLED AFTER PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICABILITY OF LABOR LAW 240(1) WHERE A LADDER-FALL IS PRECEDED BY AN ELECTRIC SHOCK (FIRST DEPT).
MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

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

Injury to Officer from Collapsing Stretcher Deemed Accidental Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though...