You are here: / / Erroneous Admission of Hearsay and Expert Testimony Re: ANSI Standards...
,

Erroneous Admission of Hearsay and Expert Testimony Re: ANSI Standards Required Reversal of Million Dollar Verdict in Slip and Fall Case

In reversing a million dollar verdict in a slip and fall case, the Second Department determined that a hearsay statement (“oh my God, someone else fell”) and expert testimony about the floor mats not complying with American National Standards Institute [ANSI] standards should not have been admitted:

…[T]he security guard’s statement did not qualify as a present sense impression or an excited utterance. The statement was not admissible as a present sense impression because it is clear that the statement was not made as the security guard perceived the happening of the accident, and there was no evidence that corroborated his statement… . Regarding the excited utterance exception, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that “at the time of the statement the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still [his] reflective faculties and had no opportunity for deliberation”… . Here, the plaintiff failed to meet that burden. Therefore, it was error to admit the hearsay testimony concerning the out-of-court statement of the security guard.

The Supreme Court also erred in allowing the plaintiff’s expert to testify, in effect, that the defendants’ conduct regarding the placement of mats was negligent because it allegedly did not comply with regulations promulgated by the American National Standards Institute (hereinafter ANSI). “[ANSI] standards do not constitute statutes, ordinances, or regulations”… . Although the court did not charge the jury regarding ANSI standards, by permitting such testimony, it allowed the jury to improperly speculate that the defendants’ conduct should be measured against a higher standard of care than is required under the common law… . Gonzalez v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 05614, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT’S DETERMINATION THE BANK HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER, BASED UPON HER PAST CARE OF THE CHILDREN, WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT WHO HAD STANDING TO APPLY FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD BE RETURNED TO HER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Filing Petition Four Hours Late Was Fatal Defect
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER BY HER MOTHER BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION MOTHER LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, PLAINTIFF HAD ONLY A POTENTIAL, SPECULATIVE INTEREST IN HER MOTHER’S PROPERTY.
Defendant’s Hospital Records Properly Admitted—Physician-Patient Privilege Waived by Defense Counsel’s Attempt to Show (During Cross-Examination of Police Officers) that Defendant’s Conduct Was Related to a Medical Condition, Not Intoxication

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

Police Officer Not Injured by “Recognized Hazard”—No Recovery Under... “Missing Witness Rule” Properly Applied in Bench-Trial Proceeding to Determine...