You are here: / DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that defendant’s conviction in this murder case was supported by the weight of the evidence. The dissent argued that defendant’s videotaped statement supported the justification defense and no other evidence presented by the People refuted it. The opinion includes a comprehensive discussion of the appellate court’s weight of the evidence analysis:

​

Weight of the evidence review involves a two-step approach. (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]). First, the Court must determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable (id.; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). If so, then the appellate court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony … . That step is performed by weighing the evidence against the elements as charged to the jury … . The evidence must be of such weight and credibility as to convince the Court that the jury’s finding of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was justified … . * * *

​

Viewing all of the record evidence in light of the first prong of the Romero-Bleakley standard, had the jury credited defendant’s account of the events surrounding the shooting, it could have reasonably found that defendant was, as the trial court instructed, “justified in the use of deadly physical force, . . . hav[ing] honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself from what he honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by Steven Mari and [that] a reasonable person in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew, and being in the same circumstances would have believed that too.” Thus, had the jury credited defendant’s statement, it would not have been unreasonable for the jury to have acquitted defendant … .

Turning to the second step of the Romero-Bleakley analysis, at the outset, there is no basis for disturbing the jury’s rejection of defendant’s videotaped statement. Defendant’s statements … were materially inconsistent, and defied credulity. People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08899, First Dept 12-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence of serious physical injury, an element of the gang assault charge, was supported by sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury. However, prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings warranted dismissal of the indictment (the People may represent however):

​

We agree with the People that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a serious physical injury. While the medical records introduced in evidence were uncertified and were thus hearsay, the victim himself was competent to testify to “readily apparent external physical injuries of which he obviously [had] personal knowledge” … .

​

We agree with the court, however, that the prosecutor engaged in a pervasive pattern of improper conduct at the grand jury proceeding that warranted dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the integrity of the proceeding was impaired … .. The prosecutor acted improperly in repeatedly asking leading questions of his witnesses … , and in introducing hearsay evidence … . During his cross-examination of defendants, the prosecutor improperly asked them whether other witnesses were lying … ., and he asked Blauvelt, without any evident good faith basis, whether defendants used illegal drugs on the night of the altercation and whether they used steroids in general … .. “Most egregiously,” as described by the court, the prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness by stating personal opinions relevant to material issues during his instructions to the grand jury, i.e., that younger people are more likely than older people to start fights, and that the victim’s injuries must have resulted from “a substantial beating” … . We remind the People that a prosecutor owes “a duty of fair dealing to the accused” at a grand jury proceeding and, more generally, that a prosecutor “serves a dual role as advocate and public officer,” and must “not only . . . seek convictions but [must] also . . . see that justice is done” … . People v Blauvelt, 2017 NY Slip Op 08948, Fourth Dept 12-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (MISCONDUCT DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY PRESENTED THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM WAS SUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant Enerco was entitled to discovery of information demonstrating the retail distribution of the type of clothes distributed by defendant Star of India which had caught fire from a heater manufactured or distributed by defendant Enerco. The court held that Enerco did not have to rely on a printout created by Star of India purporting to demonstrate Star of India did not distribute the clothes in question. The court also held that Enerco’s motion to amend its answer was properly denied. There was evidence Enerco had led parties to believe it was not going to assert the cross-claims it sought to include in the amended answer, thereby limiting questioning during a deposition:

​

… [T]he Enerco defendants do not rely on mere speculation for their discovery demand. Based upon this, together with the fact that the search results are entirely dependent upon the search terms that are used and that [the party] was unable to explain how the results she relied upon were generated, we find that the complete contents of the database from 2004 to 2009 “may be fairly characterized as useful and reasonable” … .Furthermore, our review of the record does not suggest that disclosure of the contents of the database for this specific period would be unnecessarily onerous or impose any special burden on Star of India … . …

​

The Enerco defendants asserted that their 2½-year delay in moving for leave to amend their answer was due to the fact that they were operating ‘under the incorrect assumption that they had asserted cross claims against every co-defendant.’ This proffered excuse, however, is belied by the affidavit of Amy Weissman, an attorney for one of the codefendants. The Weissman affidavit makes clear that the Enerco defendants induced the other defense attorneys in the second action not to ask questions at the deposition of the Enerco defendants’ witnesses based on the explicit representation by counsel for the Enerco defendants that they had no cross claims against those codefendants. Thus, we view the proffered excuse to be disingenuous.

… These defendants have relied upon the Enerco defendants’ representation to their prejudice by forgoing questioning of the Enerco defendants’ witnesses, and they have been hindered in the preparation of their case … . Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 08918, Third Dept 12-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER, DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/DISCOVERY (DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/ANSWER (MOTION TO AMEND,  DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AMENDMENT OF ANSWER (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, ON APPEAL PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Garden Homes did not demonstrate it had acquired a prescriptive easement over plaintiffs’ (the Patels’) land such that effluent and storm water could be discharged onto plaintiffs’ property. The court further found plaintiffs’ trespass action was proven and sent the matter back for trial on damages:

​

” The essence of trespass is the invasion of a person’s interest in the exclusive possession of land'” … . “Accordingly, an action for trespass over the lands of one property owner may not be maintained where the purported trespasser has acquired an easement of way over the land in question'” … .

An easement by prescription may be demonstrated by clear and convincing proof of the adverse, open and notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the subject property for the prescriptive period … , which is 10 years … . ” [T]he right acquired by prescription is commensurate with the right enjoyed'” … .

​

Here, Garden Homes could acquire a prescriptive easement for the encroachment of components of its sewage treatment system and the drainage of effluent and storm water only equal in area to that portion of the property actually used during the prescriptive period … . However, the Supreme Court’s determination, made after the nonjury trial, that Garden Homes established by clear and convincing evidence the continuous use of a particular portion of the Patels’ property during the prescriptive period was not warranted by the facts. Accordingly, the court should not have found that Garden Homes had a prescriptive easement over a portion of the Patels’ property … .. Moreover, as the Patels established a continuing trespass … , the complaint in Action No. 1 must be reinstated, the Patels must be awarded judgment against the defendants in Action No. 1 on the issue of liability, and the matter must be remitted … for a continued trial in that action on the issues of damages and injunctive relief, and the entry thereafter of an appropriate amended judgment. Patel v Garden Homes Mgt. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 08839, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, TRESPASS, DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/EASEMENTS  (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, TRESPASS, DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT (DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/TRESPASS (DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/STORM WATER  (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, TRESPASS, DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/EFFLUENT  (PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS, TRESPASS, DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE IT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ALLOWING EFFLUENT AND STORM WATER TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGMENT ON THEIR TRESPASS ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-sellers, in the context of a motion to dismiss the complaint, were not entitled to keep the down payment based upon plaintiffs’ failure to attend the closing pursuant to a time of the essence demand. Defendants did not demonstrate they were able to close because there were outstanding liens on the property. In addition, there was a question whether defendants had a duty to speak when plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the closing, an issue that cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss:

​

Here, the mortgage indebtedness on the subject property amounted to $11,265,000, nearly three times the portion of the purchase price due at the closing. The defendants only satisfied $8,850,000 of that indebtedness in October 2014, about six months after the law day. Further, in order to close, the defendants were required to clear other liens of up to $25,000, and deliver their corporation formation documents to the title company, which allegedly was not done.

On the question of specific performance, a purchaser seeking specific performance of a real estate contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform on the contract, regardless of any anticipatory breach by the seller … . An anticipatory breach of the contract excuses the purchaser from tendering performance, but does not excuse the purchaser from the requirement that it be ready, willing, and able to perform … .

The defendants were not required to consent to the adjournment of a time-of-the-essence closing … . However, the question here is whether the defendants had any obligation to respond. A duty to speak arises where there is a duty of fair dealing between the parties pursuant to a contractual relationship, and failure to speak is inconsistent with “honest dealings” and misleads another… .. Such a duty may be created by a course of conduct … . Here, the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendants; therefore, there was a prior course of conduct not explored on this record, as well as opportunities to speak and actual communication between the parties with respect to this transaction one day prior to the law day. 533 Park Ave. Realty, LLC v Park Ave. Bldg. & Roofing Supplies, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08802, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

REAL ESTATE (TIME OF THE ESSENCE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, TIME OF THE ESSENCE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/TIME OF THE ESSENCE (REAL ESTATE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DUTY TO SPEAK (REAL ESTATE, TIME OF THE ESSENCE, REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL ESTATE, TIME OF THE ESSENCE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT)

/ ,

TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town did not demonstrate it did not created the dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The town’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

​

Here, the plaintiff alleged in his bill of particulars that the Town negligently caused, permitted, and allowed the barricade to be placed in such a way that a part of the barricade extended out into the line of pedestrian traffic. Thus, to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Town was required to establish, prima facie, both that it did not receive prior written notice of the condition and that it did not create the condition through an affirmative act of negligence … .

​

Although the Town established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the allegedly negligent positioning of the barricade, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition through an affirmative act of negligence. Since the Town’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it was responsible for the allegedly negligent placement of the barricade, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition … . Toscano v Town of Huntington, 2017 NY Slip Op 08872, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, TOWN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this action brought by a former jail inmate for injuries related to suicide attempt (by jumping out a window) was properly denied. The defendants failed to demonstrate the attempt was not foreseeable and that the medical care provided was adequate:

​

The County owes a duty of care to protect its prisoners, even from self-inflicted harm… . However, the County is not an insurer of prisoner safety and negligence cannot be inferred merely because an incident occurred… . Rather, the County’s duty is limited to providing reasonable care to protect prisoners from risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable, i.e., those that the County knew or should have known… .

Here, the defendants, as the parties seeking summary judgment, bore the burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff’s attempt to commit suicide was not foreseeable… . … The defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants knew or should have known that the injured plaintiff posed a risk of harm to herself and whether the defendants “failed to use adequate supervision to prevent that which was reasonably foreseeable”… . Moreover, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they violated 42 USC § 1983 by depriving the injured plaintiff of her Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care … , and Mr. Iannelli’s claim for loss of consortium … . Iannelli v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 08815, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL (NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/JAILS (NEGLIGENCE, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SUICIDE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the county had not met its burden and its motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff, an inmate at the county jail, alleged he was injured in a fight involving other inmates. The complaint alleged the failure to keep the inmate safe and the failure to provide adequate medical care. The proof offered by the county did not demonstrate the altercation was not foreseeable, the protective measures were adequate, or the medical care was adequate. The failure to offer sufficient proof addressing these issues required the denial of summary judgment:

​

“Having assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the [municipality owes] a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates” … . “Like other duties in tort, the scope of the . . . duty to protect inmates is limited to risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable” … . On its motion for summary judgment, the County had the burden of establishing that the assault of the plaintiff was not foreseeable … . The County did not meet that burden, as it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it knew or should have known of the dangerous propensity of certain inmates involved in the assault, or of prior similar incidents occurring while meals were being distributed by inmates. Evidence submitted by the County indicated that such altercations involving inmates distributing meals occurred monthly. Moreover, the County also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm … .

With respect to the second cause of action, which alleged a failure to provide the plaintiff with timely, adequate medical attention, a municipality owes a duty to its incarcerated citizens to provide them with adequate medical care … . The County did not submit the affidavit of an expert attesting to the adequacy of the medical care provided to the plaintiff. Its attorney’s conclusory assertion that the plaintiff received timely, adequate medical care, together with its submission of the plaintiff’s medical records, failed to establish the County’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter law dismissing the second cause of action … . Adeleke v County of Suffolk, 2017 NY Slip Op 08803, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (INMATES, COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (INMATES, NEGLIGENCE,  COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/INMATES (NEGLIGENCE, COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/JAILS (NEGLIGENCE, COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/

BUILDING OWNER, MANAGER, AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR MISLEVELING SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the building owner’s, building manager’s and elevator maintenance company’s motions for summary judgment were properly granted in this elevator misleveling slip and fall case. The defendants demonstrated they did not have notice of the misleveling:

​

A property owner can be held liable for an elevator-related injury where there is a defect in the elevator, and the property owner has actual or constructive notice of the defect … , or where it fails to notify the elevator company with which it has a maintenance and repair contract about a known defect… . “An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition can also be held liable to an injured passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found'” … . Goodwin v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2017 NY Slip Op 08814, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (BUILDING OWNER, MANAGER, AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR MISLEVELING SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATORS (MISLEVELING, SLIP AND FALL, BUILDING OWNER, MANAGER, AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR MISLEVELING SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (BUILDING OWNER, MANAGER, AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR MISLEVELING SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/MISLEVELING (ELEVATORS, SLIP AND FALL, BUILDING OWNER, MANAGER, AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR MISLEVELING SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))

/

SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sign which plaintiff struck when jumping to catch a ball was an open and obvious condition which was not actionable. The sign was six feet seven inches from the ground attached to a light pole:

​

“A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [its] property in a safe condition under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the potential injuries, the burden of avoiding the risk, and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property” … . “[An] owner, however, has no duty to protect against an open and obvious condition provided that, as a matter of law, the condition is not inherently dangerous” … . Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the sign that the plaintiff came into contact with was open and obvious, as it was not only readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, but was known to the plaintiff prior to the accident and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous … . Contrary to his contentions on appeal, the plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the sign was inherently dangerous. Genefar v Great Neck Park Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 08812, Second Dept 12-20-

 

NEGLIGENCE (OPEN AND OBVIOUS, SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (NEGLIGENCE, SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (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