You are here: / / EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM...
,

EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM AND PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department ordered a new trial (in the interest of justice) in this elevator accident case because the trial judge excluded a witness representing the elevator company from the courtroom and prohibited any communication between the witness and defense counsel:

… [A] new trial is required due to the Supreme Court’s error in excluding a witness from the courtroom and in prohibiting the witness from communicating with defense counsel during the trial as to any matter. The witness at issue was an employee of the defendant and the representative it had designated to assist in the defense of this action. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of extenuating circumstances, the witness was entitled to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial … . Further, the court’s decision to prohibit defense counsel from communicating at all with the witness, who was knowledgable about the technical aspects of elevator mechanics and maintenance that were the subject of the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, compromised the defendant’s ability to assist in and present its defense … . Perry v Kone, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01395, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (TRIALS, EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM AND PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/NEGLIGENCE (TRIALS, ELEVATOR ACCIDENT, EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM AND PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/TRIALS (CIVIL, NEGLIGENCE, ELEVATOR ACCIDENT, EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM AND PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/ELEVATORS (TRIALS, EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM AND PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

You might also like
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS STAIRWAY FALL BUT HE TESTIFIED HE REACHED FOR A HANDRAIL AND THERE WAS NONE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE PRESENCE OR NEED FOR A HANDRAIL; THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A FALL; DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT HAVE A STOP SIGN AND HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COLLISION WITH DEFENDANT WHO HAD ENTERED THE INTERSECTION AFTER STOPPING AT A STOP SIGN (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT).
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
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).
Supreme Court Has Power to Issue Judicial Consent to Settlement Nunc Pro Tunc Where Workers’ Compensation Carrier Failed to Timely Seek Consent to a Third-Party Settlement from the Special Funds Conservation Commission
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

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

PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE... PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE.