You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE...
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the golf-course sprinkler-valve-hole, which caused plaintiff’s decedent to trip and fall, was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course, thereby overcoming the assumption of risk doctrine. Supreme Court should not have excluded the photographs of the area where plaintiff fell. Contrary to Supreme Court’s reasoning, the person who authenticated the photographs was a not a notice witness who should have been named prior to the filing of the note of issue:

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the subject condition was concealed or unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the golf course … In this regard, the Supreme Court erred in rejecting the affidavits and photographic evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion. Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to identify John Flower as a notice witness prior to filing the note of issue. The disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 include the obligation to disclose the names of witnesses “if they are material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action” … . Here, Flower did not possess information material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action. In his affidavit, Flower merely authenticated certain photographs, most of which had been submitted by the decedent with his notice of claim prior to his death. Consequently, the court should not have rejected Flower’s affidavit and the attendant photographs on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to identify Flower as a notice witness prior to the filing of the note of issue. As a related matter, the court improperly rejected the affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert on the ground that he relied upon the photographs. Further, the court should not have rejected the two remaining affidavits from individuals who were disclosed to the defendant prior to the filing of the note of issue. MacIsaac v Nassau County, 2017 NY Slip Op 05814, 2nd Dept 7-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (NOTICE WITNESS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (GOLF, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/GOLF (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/PHOTOGRAPHS (EVIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)/NOTICE WITNESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT)

You might also like
General Contractor’s Liability for Ice and Snow at Work Site/Criteria for Indemnification of General Contractor
Sanction for Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith Under Subprime Mortgage Laws Violated Contract Clause
Failure to Mail Summons and Complaint to the Address the Property Owner Designated for the Receipt of All Relevant Correspondence Required Vacation of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale—Property Owner Was Never Properly Served Pursuant to CPLR 308(2)
LYFT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A LYFT DRIVER; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON THE ASSURANCES OF SAFETY ON LYFT’S WEBSITE (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE INCLUDED A PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, PLEA VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners
Failure to Warn Defendant His Guilty Plea Could Lead to Deportation, Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in Padilla v Kentucky, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE... THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S...