You are here: / / PROOF OF MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL CONTACT INSUFFICIENT; RISK ASSESSMENT...
, ,

PROOF OF MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL CONTACT INSUFFICIENT; RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s risk assessment to level one, determined the proof of multiple instances of sexual contact was insufficient:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to risk factor 4. Although the People submitted evidence, in the form of the defendant’s statements, that he engaged in sexual contact with the victim on three or four occasions, they failed to submit any evidence as to when these instances of sexual contact occurred relative to one another, so as to demonstrate that such instances were separated in time by at least 24 hours, as the People claimed … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed 20 points under risk factor 4. People v Jarama, 2019 NY Slip Op 09044, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

You might also like
THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SLIPPERY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS FATAL TO THE LAWSUIT; ALLEGING THE FLOOR WAS SHINY OR SLIPPERY IS NOT ENOUGH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND RELIED ON FACTS NOT IN THE RECORD; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
​ IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT A DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THIS RELATED NEGLIGENCE ACTION AND ARGUING PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS PRESENTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL, THE BANK DEMONSTRATED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT BY CERTIFIED MAIL BUT FAILED TO PROVE THE NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT BY REGULAR MAIL; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained/Appellate Review Powers Re: a Bench Trial Described
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER PLYWOOD FELL WHILE HOISTED OR DURING INSTALLATION.

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

PROOF OF GENERAL INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE... DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD...