You are here: / / SUPREME COURT HELD A HEARSAY STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE...
,

SUPREME COURT HELD A HEARSAY STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THE STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE “UNDER STRESS OF EXCITEMENT” AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated a piece of duct, which should have been secured, fell and knocked him off the ladder. The defendant alleged that plaintiff told the foreman he fell because he jumped down several rungs. That hearsay statement was admitted as an excited utterance. The First Department held the statement was not made “under stress of excitement” and should not have been admitted in evidence:

Defendant submitted the affidavit of its foreman, who averred that after the accident, plaintiff told him that he, plaintiff, fell from the ladder because he had jumped down several rungs. Supreme Court admitted this statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, finding that it raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. This finding was error. According to the foreman, plaintiff was taking a break and told the foreman that he felt “fine” when he made the statement. Thus, there was no evidence that plaintiff made the purported hearsay statement “under the stress of excitement” … . As defendant did not argue any other valid basis for admitting the hearsay statement, it is “insufficient to defeat summary judgment” … , and there was no other admissible evidence in opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Vivar v Citigroup Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02051, First Dept 4-8-25

Practice Point: Here, whether the defendant raised a question of fact in this ladder-fall case turned on whether plaintiff’s alleged statement that he fell because he “jumped down several rungs” was admissible as an excited utterance. The First Department determined the alleged hearsay statement was not made “under stress of excitement” and was inadmissible. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

You might also like
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK.
Question of Fact Whether Infant Plaintiff’s Injuries Were the Result of Negligent Supervision at a Summer Camp
Motion to Resettle Not Proper Vehicle for Substantive Change to Order
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE PURPORTED TRANSFER BY DEED OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY TO A LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY WAS NULL AND VOID FROM THE OUTSET BECAUSE THE LLC DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE DEED WAS EXECUTED; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFORMATION OF THE DEED NEVER STARTED RUNNING; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE TRANSFER TO THE LLC WAS NULL AND VOID (SECOND DEPT).
A 2009 AMENDED COMPLAINT SERVED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LEAVE OF COURT, ALTHOUGH INVALID AS A PLEADING, RE-ACCELERATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE FURTHER RESTRICTED DISCOVERY FOR THE PROTECTION OF WITNESSES (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION INSPECTED THE VACANT PROPERTY AND MADE PERIODIC REPAIRS, IT WAS NOT A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION” SUCH THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED; IN ORDER TO BE DEEMED A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION,” THE MORTGAGOR MUST CONSENT TO THE BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY (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

DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLOWED EVIDENCE PRECLUDED BY A SANDOVAL RULING TO COME IN,... THE PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY HAD TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE...