You are here: / / MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE...
, ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR WORK ON THE AREA OF THE FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT BEEN DEPOSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED.

The First Department determined the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The First Department further held that photographs of the sinkhole where plaintiff fell (taken two weeks after the injury) and the contract specifications for repair of the sinkhole should not have been excluded from evidence. In addition plaintiff’s subpoenas for a city inspector and a principal of the contractor (Halcyon) which repaired the sinkhole should not have been quashed. The fact that those witnesses were not deposed did not preclude plaintiff’s calling them at trial:

… [T]he trial court erred in precluding pictures of the accident site … . Plaintiff authenticated the photographs at his deposition, and further testimony at trial could have explained how and why the scene depicted in the photos did or did not differed from the scene on the day of the accident … . Exclusion of the photographs meant that plaintiff was unable to show the jury the hole into which he allegedly fell.

Nor should the court have precluded the City’s specifications incorporated into its contract with Halcyon. The specifications were expressly incorporated into the contract between Halcyon and the City; thus, they applied not only to the City itself, but also to third parties. Therefore, they were admissible as potential evidence of defendants’ negligence… , and indeed, the City failed to show how the specifications transcended the duty of reasonable care. The trial court’s exclusion of this evidence regarding the specifications hobbled plaintiff’s ability to prove that the City had engaged in affirmative negligence — the very basis upon which the trial court granted the directed verdict.

Likewise, the court erred in quashing the subpoenas directed to the City’s onsite inspector and a principal of Halcyon … . Although plaintiff did not formally name the City’s onsite inspector and the principal of Halcyon as witnesses, nothing in the CPLR requires a party to generate a trial witness list, nor does the record indicate that the individual court rules required him to do so … . Indeed, there is no requirement that a party depose a witness in order to call him or her as a witness at trial. Gonzalez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05180, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).
APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL, CREMATORY AND FUNERAL CHAPEL RELIED IN GOOD FAITH ON THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY DECEDENT’S DOMESTIC PARTNER; PLAINTIFFS, DECEDENT’S ADULT CHILDREN, RAISED NO OBJECTION TO THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE DOMESTIC PARTNER UNTIL A MONTH AFTER DEATH; THE “INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS OF SEPULCHER” ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOVING MONEY THROUGH A NEW YORK BANK IS ENOUGH TO CONFER PERSONAL JURISDICTION ON OUT-OF-STATE PARTIES, SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY HELD IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE NEW YORK A CONVENIENT FORUM (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DE-ACCELERATED THE MORTGAGE RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
CENTURY-OLD ELEVATOR MUST BE REPLACED, DESPITE THE COST AND DESPITE THE APPARENT FACT THAT ONLY ONE OF FOUR TENANTS USED THE ELEVATOR (FIRST DEPT).
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT INLCUDE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF A PATTERN OF DELAY; THEREFORE THE “FAILURE TO PROSECUTE” EXCEPTION IN CPLR 205 (A) DID NOT APPLY; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE, THE PASSING REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERED, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DUTY TO DEFEND (FIRST 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

INSURERS’ RESPONSES TO INSUREDS’ CLAIMS UNDER THE INSURANCE CONTRACTS... SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED...