You are here: / WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED...

Search Results

/ ,

WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The majority, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined whether the search of a vehicle after a street stop was valid presented a mixed question of law and fact that was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals:

​

From the dissent:

​

… [W]here the issue presented is whether the People have demonstrated “the minimum showing necessary” to establish the legality of police conduct, “a question of law is presented for [our] review” … .

Accepting the facts as found by the Appellate Division and the suppression court, which are not disputed here, the People failed to adduce the minimum showing required to justify a protective search of defendant’s vehicle — namely, a substantial likelihood of the presence of a weapon and an actual and specific threat to officer safety. I, therefore, disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the question of whether the protective search was lawful is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable only for record support, and I would hold that the search of defendant’s vehicle was unlawful. People v Hardee, 2017 NY Slip Op 08038, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS,  WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/STREET STOPS (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/PROTECTIVE SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))

/

DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the appellate division, determined a defendant has a right to be present when, after moving to vacate the sentence because the period of post-release supervision (PRS) was not mentioned, the sentencing court imposes the original sentence without a period of PRS:

​

There is only one enumerated exception to the statute where the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor or petty offense, on motion of the defendant the court may sentence the defendant in absentia (CPL 380.40 [2]). We have also previously held that a defendant convicted of a felony may waive the right to be present at sentencing, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . However, absent such a waiver — or a forfeiture of the right to be present … — … “[t]here is no statutory basis for [a] [futility] exception” … .

Here, the Appellate Division concluded that there was no reason to remand the case because [defendant] was not adversely affected by his re-imposed sentence, citing People v Covington(88 AD3d 486, 486 [1st Dept 2011]), and People v Mills (117 AD3d at 1556). The majority in Mills cited CPL 470.15 [1] for the proposition that the Appellate Division cannot consider a sentence that did not “adversely affect[] the appellant.” CPL 470.15 (1) says, “Upon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant.” Here, as there was no voluntary waiver, [defendant’s] absence from the sentencing proceeding was in itself, under our precedents, an error as it constitutes a violation of his right under CPL 380.40. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. People v Estremera, 2017 NY Slip Op 08036, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))

/

BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant should have been found totally disabled:

​

After injuring her back in October 2007, claimant underwent multiple back surgeries, including a L3-4 and L4-5 spinal fusion in December 2010 and fusions at L4-5 and L5-S1 in August 2012. A spinal cord stimulator was implanted in August 2013. Claimant’s physician, Clifford Ameduri, was treating her for postoperative back pain. Ameduri completed a “Doctor’s Report of MMI/Permanent Impairment” form C-4.3 in August 2014 that classified her condition as permanent and assigned a class five severity F rating to her lumbar back injury under the New York State Guidelines for Determining Permanent Impairment and Loss of Wage Earning Capacity (2012). Ameduri also rated her functional capacity at “less than sedentary work,” a category defined as “unable to meet the requirement of sedentary work.”… Nowhere in this record does Ameduri opine that claimant sustained only a permanent partial disability. Guy Corkhill, the physician who conducted an independent medical examination on behalf of the workers’ compensation carrier, assigned a class four severity G rating to claimant’s back condition. In his testimony, Corkhill agreed with Ameduri that it was “unlikely [claimant] would ever be able to return to meaningful employment.” Notwithstanding this medical testimony, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that claimant was capable of performing sedentary employment. In adopting Ameduri’s severity F rating, the Board further discredited Corkhill’s opinion as based primarily on claimant’s subjective complaint, notwithstanding Corkhill’s testimony that her subjective complaints comported with his objective findings.

Since the Board’s findings as to claimant’s ability to perform some type of sedentary work are contrary to the consistent medical proof presented, the Board’s finding of a permanent partial disability and a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity is not supported by substantial evidence in the record … . Claimant maintains, and we agree, that the record actually warrants a finding of a permanent total disability. Matter of Wohlfeil v Sharel Ventures, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08060, Third Dept 11-16-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SEDENTARY WORK (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY  (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

/

MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined drivers for a medical lab (Empire City) were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

​

Although some of the control exercised by Empire City was occasioned by the regulated nature of the work performed by the drivers, many aspects of control exercised by Empire City went well beyond such regulation … . Empire City assigned delivery routes based on driver availability, and the drivers were required to make the stops and deliveries along those routes as specified by Empire City. To this end, Empire City provided the drivers with route sheets containing instructions for pickups and, on occasion, imposed pickup times for its clients. Drivers were required to make same-day delivery of any specimens that were picked up and, at the conclusion of each day, drivers were required to submit route sheets to Empire City and confirm that no specimens remained in their vehicles. Empire City also provided the drivers with assistance if they experienced difficulty making a delivery and, if a driver was unable to report to work and find a substitute driver, Empire City asked for advance notice so that it could cover the route by assigning another driver of its choosing to the route. Empire City provided supplies, including ice boxes and ice packs, to facilitate the deliveries and handled client complaints. Matter of Raupov (Empire City Labs., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 08068, Third Dept 11-16-17

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, MEDICAL LAB DRIVERS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the seller of the property demonstrated it could not be held liable for the underground gas tanks found on the property. The purchase and sale contract indicated only that the seller was not aware of any underground fuel tanks:

​

The court properly found that defendant did not breach the contract by failing to disclose the presence of underground gas tanks on the property. …[D]efendant guaranteed and warranted only that it had not generated, stored or disposed of hazardous materials and had no knowledge of the previous presence of such materials on the property. Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant was responsible for the presence of the gas tanks or had any knowledge of it. The former owner of the property and a managing member of defendant testified that he was unaware of the presence of the gas tanks.

In addition, … defendant disclaimed and [did not make] any warranties or representations concerning environmental conditions. Plaintiff acknowledged that it was relying solely on its own expertise and consultants in this regard, and was purchasing the property “as is, where is” … . West 17th St. & Tenth Ave. Realty, LLC v N.E.W. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 08088, First Dept 11-16-17

 

REAL ESTATE (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff properly survived defendants’ summary judgment motion in this stairway fall case. Plaintiff’s decedent died before he was deposed. There was a video of the fall but it was destroyed after decedent’s daughter requested a copy of it. The motion court held plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference. The complaint alleged the cause of the fall was inadequate illumination and submitted a supporting affidavit by an expert:

​

The dissent contends … that the issue of proximate cause must be decided as matter of law in favor of defendants because “none of [the witness to the accident or who reviewed the videotape of the accident] claimed that the decedent misstepped or lost his balance due to inadequate lighting.” The law, however, does not apply such a stringent requirement. To be sure, a plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of a fall is fatal to an action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused a plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation … . However, this simply requires that the evidence identifies the defect or hazard itself and provides sufficient facts and circumstances from which causation may be reasonably inferred … .

​

The dissent cannot and does not dispute that inadequate lighting itself may constitute a dangerous condition where the inadequacy of lighting renders the appearance of premises deceptive. Such deception occurs by the illusion that two areas of the same premises are on the same level whereas, in fact, there is a change in floor level to which the available lighting does not call sufficient attention.

… [W]e find that the evidence adduced by defendants failed to eliminate all issues of fact as to whether this alleged dangerous condition on the subject stairway contributed to the decedent’s fall. Haibi v 790 Riverside Dr. Owners, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08102, First Dept 11-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, INADEQUATE LIGHTING, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING,  DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/LIGHTING (SLIP AND FALL, INADEQUATE LIGHTING, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/ILLUMINATION  (SLIP AND FALL, INADEQUATE LIGHTING, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/INADEQUATE LIGHTING (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRWAY  (SLIP AND FALL, INADEQUATE LIGHTING, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, PROXIMATE CAUSE, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/PROXIMATE CASE (SLIP AND FALL, INADEQUATE LIGHTING, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/SPOLIATION (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO DESTROYED, INADEQUATE LIGHTING, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))/VIDEO (SPOLIATION, SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO DESTROYED, INADEQUATE LIGHTING, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT))

/

EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined an easement had been extinguished when the same party became the owner of both affected parcels and plaintiff was not entitled to an easement by necessity:

​

“An easement is not a personal right of the landowner but is an appurtenance to the land benefitted by it (the dominant estate). It is inseparable from the land and a grant of the land carries with it the grant of the easement” … . Here, the subject property and the adjoining property came under common ownership on October 31, 2008 … [T]he easement that came into existence in 1974 was extinguished by merger.

* * * [The] … cause of action, for a declaration that the plaintiff had an easement by necessity, contained only vague and conclusory allegations and failed to allege that an easement over the adjoining property was absolutely necessary for access to the subject property, which fronts on a public street … . GDG Realty, LLC v 149 Glen St. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 07978, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

 

REAL PROPERTY LAW (EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))/EASEMENTS  (EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))/MERGER (REAL PROPERTY LAW, EASEMENTS, EASEMENT EXTINGUISHED BY MERGER WHEN BOTH AFFECTED PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY, COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EASEMENT BY NECESSITY (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store’s (Me-Me’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted and plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference charge because a video of the fall had been negligently LOST. Plaintiff alleged she stepped on a grape. Defendant did not demonstrate a lack of notice by submitting evidence of its general cleaning practices:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence”… . To provide constructive notice, “a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . “Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … . * * *

​

Since Me-Me’s loss of the video recording was negligent rather than intentional, and the loss of the recording does not completely deprive the plaintiff of the ability to prove her case, the appropriate sanction is to direct that an adverse inference charge be given at trial with respect to the unavailable recording … . Eksarko v Associated Supermarket, 2017 NY Slip Op 07975, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT)/SPOLIATION (SLIP AND FALL, VIDEO,  PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))/VIDEO (SLIP AND FALL, SPOLIATION,  PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT))

/

BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the building owners’ (Realty defendants’) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. The defendants did not eliminate questions of fact whether they had notice of or created the dangerous condition, a wet floor in the area where floor mats had been removed while a tenant was moving in:

​

According to the Realty defendants’ deposition testimony, the floor in the building lobby was scheduled to be wet mopped on the Friday afternoon prior to the plaintiff’s accident on Monday, and the Realty defendants’ maintenance personnel were instructed, as part of their process, to remove the floor mats in the lobby and put them back in place after the floor was mopped dry.

…”To impose liability on a defendant for a slip and fall on an alleged dangerous condition on a floor, there must be evidence that the dangerous condition existed, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time” … .

A defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it … .

​

Here, the Realty defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged accumulation of water on which the plaintiff slipped and fell was created by its maintenance personnel prior to the accident… . Dow v Hermes Realty, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07974, Fourth Dept 11-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (BUILDING OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that the condemnation of regulated wetlands can be subject to an increased valuation (increment) based upon a reasonable probability a knowledgeable buyer could successfully challenge the taking as unconstitutional. The increment represents the premium that a knowledgeable buyer would be willing to pay for a potential change to a more valuable use. Here Supreme Court found the increment to be $382,190.25. The Second Department, using the City’s appraisal, reduced the increment to about $157,000.00. The value of the regulated wetlands was deemed to be $75,000.00:

​

In light of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Palazzolo [v Rhode Island, 533 US at 617], we conclude that a subsequent buyer of the property would not be precluded from bringing a successful regulatory takings claim. As a result, we reject the City’s argument that no knowledgeable buyer would be willing to pay a premium for the probability of a successful judicial determination that the regulations were confiscatory. We hold that the reasonable probability incremental increase rule still may be applied in valuing regulated wetlands properties taken in condemnation. Matter of New Cr. Bluebelt, Phase 3., 2017 NY Slip Op 07994, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (CONDEMNATION, REGULATED WETLANDS,OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (CONDEMNATION, REGULATED WETLANDS , OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CONDEMNATION, REGULATED WETLANDS, OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT))/CONDEMNATION (REGULATED WETLANDS, OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT))/REGULATORY TAKING (WETLANDS, CONDEMNATION, OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT))/WETLANDS (CONDEMNATION, REGULATED WETLANDS, OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT))/EMINENT DOMAIN (CONDEMNATION, REGULATED WETLANDS,OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (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