You are here: / DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions for criminal possession of a weapon, determined: (1) defendant was deprived of her right to present a defense when the court precluded questions that could reveal the complainant’s motive to lie; (2) prosecutorial misconduct warranted reversal (considered in the interest of justice; (3) allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant about her failure to turn herself in warranted reversal (considered in the interest of justice); and (4) allowing a witness to refer to defendant as a drug dealer warranted reversal (considered in the interest of justice). With respect to the right to present a defense, the court wrote:

… [W]e conclude that defendant was improperly precluded from establishing that the complainant was engaged in a criminal enterprise and regularly purchased crack cocaine—therefore having good reason to possess a gun as compared to defendant. More importantly, that evidence, if credited by the jury, would demonstrate that the complainant had every reason to fabricate the story that the gun belonged to defendant and not her … . In addition, we conclude that the proffered evidence was admissible to complete the narrative of events, i.e., to provide background information as to how and why the complainant allegedly confronted defendant, and to explain the aggressive nature of the confrontation … . Applying those principles here, we conclude that defendant was denied her constitutional right to present a defense … . People v Horton, 2016 NY Slip Op 08727, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/DEFENSE, RIGHT TO PRESENT (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL)

/ ,

FAILURE TO HOLD A SANDOVAL HEARING AND ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court’s failure to hold a Sandoval hearing concerning the admissibility of prior uncharged crimes or bad acts as impeachment evidence required reversal. Defendant was in fact cross-examined about prior bad acts strikingly similar to the charges against him. In addition, the trial court erred in allowing testimony of prior consistent statements by the complaining witness, i.e., “bolstering:”

The Criminal Procedure Law provides that, “[u]pon a request by a defendant, the prosecutor shall notify the defendant of all specific instances of a defendant’s prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the prosecutor has knowledge and which the prosecutor intends to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant” (CPL 240.43). Here, however, the prosecutor failed “to advise defendant before trial that he would be questioned on uncharged acts if he testified[,] and no pretrial inquiry or determination was made by the court . . . Because the court’s failure to conduct a proper pretrial inquiry may have affected defendant’s decision to testify at trial, the error cannot be deemed harmless” … . …

“The term bolstering’ is used to describe the presentation in evidence of a prior consistent statement—that is, a statement that a testifying witness has previously made out of court that is in substance the same as his or her in-court testimony” … . Although “[p]rior consistent statements will often be less prejudicial to the opposing party than other forms of hearsay, since by definition the maker of the statement has said the same thing in court that he said out of it” … , the Court of Appeals has warned that “the admission of prior consistent statements may, by simple force of repetition, give to a [factfinder] an exaggerated idea of the probative force of a party’s case” … . Contrary to the People’s sole contention, “[i]n light of the importance of the witnesses’ credibility in this case . . . , we cannot conclude that the court’s error is harmless” … . People v Memon, 2016 NY Slip Op 08653, 4th Dept 12-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO HOLD A SANDOVAL HEARING AND ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO HOLD A SANDOVAL HEARING AND ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/SANDOVAL HEARING (FAILURE TO HOLD A SANDOVAL HEARING AND ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (FAILURE TO HOLD A SANDOVAL HEARING AND ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, BOLSTERING, ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, BOLSTERING, ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, BOLSTERING, ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/BOLSTERING (CRIMINAL LAW, ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL)

/ ,

PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHOSE SON IS MARRIED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the for cause challenge to a juror whose son is married to the district attorneys daughter should have been granted. The court further determined that a defense witness’s testimony that the victim said she didn’t “think [defendant] did this” should have been allowed:

… [T]he prospective juror should have been excused from service for cause on the ground that he bears a “relationship to [the District Attorney] of such nature that it [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict” … . …

… [T]he court erred in excluding testimony from a defense witness that the victim had said that she did not “think [defendant] did this,” meaning that defendant did not commit the alleged crime. We conclude that, on cross-examination of the victim, defense counsel had laid an adequate foundation for the admission of that prior inconsistent statement by eliciting testimony that the victim had never discussed the matter with the defense witness and had never told the defense witness that the alleged occurrence “between [her] and [defendant] might not have happened” … . People v Collins, 2016 NY Slip Op 08645, 4th Dept 12-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHOSE SON IS MARRIED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHOSE SON IS MARRIED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE  (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHOSE SON IS MARRIED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

Although deemed harmless error, the Fourth Department determined defendant was denied his right to counsel when the court permitted him to decide whether to request a jury charge on a lesser included offense (despite defense counsel advice that he should not):

“It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ “… . On the other hand, defense counsel has ultimate decision making authority over matters of strategy and trial tactics, such as whether to seek a jury charge on a lesser included offense … . Here, the court “made plain that [it] would be guided solely by defendant’s choice in the matter, despite the defense attorney’s clearly stated views and advice to the contrary,” and thus the court “denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him” … . People v Henley, 2016 NY Slip Op 08729, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL)

/

JUROR NEVER STATED SHE COULD PUT ASIDE HER BIAS IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because a juror who expressed doubt she could be fair because of her close ties to law enforcement never stated she could put aside her bias toward police officers:

Although the prospective juror responded affirmatively to the court’s question whether she could base her decision in the case on what she heard and saw in the courtroom and the general question whether she could be fair and impartial … , she did not provide an “unequivocal assurance that . . . [she could] set aside [her] bias” toward police officers who would testify at the trial … . People v Griffin, 2016 NY Slip Op 08701, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR NEVER STATED SHE COULD PUT ASIDE HER BIAS IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW,  (JUROR NEVER STATED SHE COULD PUT ASIDE HER BIAS IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, JUROR NEVER STATED SHE COULD PUT ASIDE HER BIAS IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

FAILURE TO COMPLETELY EXPLAIN POTENTIAL SENTENCES AND THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE WRITTEN PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE COURT’S EXPLANATION INVALIDATED THE GUILTY PLEA.

The Fourth Department granted defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea based upon the sentencing court’s failure to completely explain the possible sentences and the discrepancy between the written plea agreement and the court’s oral explanation. The Fourth Department further found that the corrections made to the plea agreement one week after the guilty did not cure the problem. Defendant was not afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea:

Here, although the court during defendant’s arraignment articulated the terms of a plea offer that included the alternative sentences defendant would receive if he was or was not successful in the Judicial Diversion Program, the court did not state those alternative sentences on the record during the plea colloquy. Specifically, although the court stated during the plea colloquy that defendant would receive a “cap of felony probation if successful[,]” the court did not articulate the sentence that defendant would receive if he was unsuccessful.

Furthermore, the Judicial Diversion Program Contract (Contract) signed by defendant on the date he pleaded guilty contradicts the terms of the plea agreement set forth in the transcript of defendant’s arraignment. …

The Contract was amended and re-signed by defendant one week after defendant’s guilty plea was taken, and the Court of Appeals has made clear that the court must inform the defendant of the direct consequences of a plea “[p]rior to accepting a guilty plea”… . People v Streber, 2016 NY Slip Op 08683, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO COMPLETELY EXPLAIN POTENTIAL SENTENCES AND THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE WRITTEN PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE COURT’S EXPLANATION INVALIDATED THE GUILTY PLEA)/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (FAILURE TO COMPLETELY EXPLAIN POTENTIAL SENTENCES AND THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE WRITTEN PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE COURT’S EXPLANATION INVALIDATED THE GUILTY PLEA)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO COMPLETELY EXPLAIN POTENTIAL SENTENCES AND THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE WRITTEN PLEA AGREEMENT AND THE COURT’S EXPLANATION INVALIDATED THE GUILTY PLEA)

/ ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.

The Fourth Department determined a hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been held. Defendant was charged with assault. 22 days before the assault defendant had undergone brain surgery. In his motion to withdraw his plea, defendant alleged he was told by his attorney the neurosurgeon had refused to testify if a psychiatric defense was raised. However, the neurosurgeon provided an affidavit stating he never spoke to defendant’s attorney and never refused to testify:

It is well settled that the determination whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the court’s discretion and that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only in rare instances … . The denial of such a motion is not an abuse of discretion “unless there is some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in inducing the plea” … . Here, if the allegations in defendant’s affidavit are true, then defendant’s plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered inasmuch as it was based upon a mistaken belief that a psychiatric defense was unavailable … . We therefore conclude that defendant’s motion was not “patently insufficient on its face” … , and that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing … . Thus, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a hearing on defendant’s motion. People v Noce, 2016 NY Slip Op 08632, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA)/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA)

/

PATDOWN SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY A LEGITITMATE CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Fourth Department determined the street patdown search of defendant was not justified and the cocaine found in the search should have been suppressed. Defendant was a passenger in a car which was legally stopped by the police. Defendant was asked to step out of the car, which was deemed a proper request. Defendant initially refused to get out of the car and demanded an explanation for the request. At that point defendant was seized, pulled from the car, placed face down, hand-cuffed and the patdown search was conducted:

Based upon the evidence at the suppression hearing, we conclude that “the officers did not have any knowledge of some fact or circumstance that support[ed] a reasonable suspicion that the [defendant was] armed or pose[d] a threat to [their] safety’ ” … . Defendant’s evident nervousness as the officers approached the vehicle was not an indication of criminality or a threat to officer safety … . Nor was the patdown justified by the fact that the vehicle was in a high crime area … , particularly when the stop occurred on a busy street during rush hour … . Moreover, “there was no suggestion that a weapon was present or that violence was imminent” … . Finally, neither defendant’s initial refusal to exit the vehicle nor his demand for an explanation why he was being asked to exit the vehicle gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he posed a threat to the officers’ safety … . People v Ford, 2016 NY Slip Op 08631, 4th Dept 12-23-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PATDOWN SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY A LEGITITMATE CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (PATDOWN SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY A LEGITITMATE CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/STREET STOPS (PATDOWN SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY A LEGITITMATE CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUFPRESSION (PATDOWN SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY A LEGITITMATE CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/PATDOWN SEARCH (PATDOWN SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY A LEGITITMATE CONCERN FOR OFFICER SAFETY, COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined certain causes of action in this medical malpractice suit should have been allowed to go to the jury. Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted. Most of the opinion is fact-generated and cannot be summarized here. The law surrounding a directed verdict in this context, including the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, was explained. A plaintiff is not required to eliminate all other possible causes of injury to make out a prima facie case:

A directed verdict is only appropriate “when, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving part[y] and affording such part[y] the benefit of every inference, there is no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of the nonmovant[]” … . “[A] plaintiff asserting a medical malpractice claim must demonstrate that the doctor deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury” … . “[T]o establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury” … . A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may also rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur … , which “permits the jury to infer negligence and causation sufficient to establish a prima facie case based on circumstantial evidence” … . “Notably, a plaintiff is not required to eliminate all other possible causes of the injury in order to establish a prima facie case” of medical malpractice … . * * *

“Whether or not res ipsa loquitur was applicable here, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury” on two of her three theories of liability … . Upon the evidence submitted, Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiff’s first theory of liability as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff’s proof, yet provided no explanation for dismissing the entire complaint, and we can perceive none under the circumstances of this case given the existence of two viable and independent theories of liability that were supported by sufficient trial proof … . Majid v Cheon-Lee, 2016 NY Slip Op 08572, 3rd Dept 12-22-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DIRECTED VERDICT, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DIRECTED VERDICT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

PILOTS AND SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE.

The Third Department determined a stop-work order was properly issued against a skydiving company for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance to its pilots and skydiving instructors. The owner of Saratoga Skydiving, Rawlins, argued that the pilots and jump instructors were independent contractors, not employees:

… [W]e find that substantial evidence supports the decision that Saratoga Skydiving, which is controlled, owned and operated by Rawlins, is required to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its pilots and jump instructors because they are employees. Foremost, considering the relative nature of their work, the pilots and jump instructors are indispensable and integral to Saratoga Skydiving’s business of offering skydiving experiences to clients … . Further, Rawlins supplied all of the equipment, including the planes and parachutes through companies solely owned and controlled by him … . He also exercised sufficient control over the work, scheduling and services provided on behalf of Saratoga Skydiving, selected who to hire for each jump and determined whether they were sufficiently efficient to be paid or should be discharged. Matter of Saratoga Skydiving Adventures v Workers’ Compensation Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 08575, 3rd Dept 12-22-16

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (PILOTS AND SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE)/SKYDIVING (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PILOTS AND SKYDIVING INSTRUCTORS WERE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE)

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