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 IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED THE MORTGAGE DEBT, STARTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANEW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CHINESE NATIONAL NOT DOMICILED IN NEW YORK, NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
THE CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A DEMONSTRATION OF URBAN BLIGHT OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSE; THE SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT).
Handwriting Expert Not Necessary to Create Question of Fact About Authenticity of Signature
Contribution and Indemnification Unavailable in Breach of Contract Action; Notice of Claim Requirement Under Education Law Never Triggered by Denial of Payment
THE TOWN PLACED A $24,000 LIEN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY FOR REPAIR WORK DONE BY THE TOWN BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A PROCEDURAL-DUE-PROCESS ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN (42 USC 1983); THE ACTION FAILED BECAUSE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A CPLR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (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.