You are here: / Question of Fact Raised About Whether Signature on Promissory Note Was...

Search Results

/

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Signature on Promissory Note Was Forged

In this action on a promissory note, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that defendant raised a triable issue of fact whether his signature was forged. The court noted that expert evidence is not necessary to raise a question of fact in this context:

Something more than a mere assertion of forgery is required to create an issue of fact contesting the authenticity of a signature … . Here, in addition to his own affidavit, the defendant submitted a copy of his driver license as an example of his signature, and an affidavit from the individual who allegedly witnessed execution of the note. Review of the defendant’s signature on his driver license and the signature on the note reveal some difference to the untrained eye. More importantly, the individual who is identified as the witness on the note stated in his affidavit that he had no recollection of witnessing the defendant signing the note, and that he believed that his own signature thereon was forged. Furthermore, while the defendant did not submit an expert affidavit, an expert opinion is not required to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a forgery allegation … . Finally, the defendant’s signature on the note was not notarized, and thus, there is no presumption of due execution … . Kitovas v Megaris, 2015 NY Slip Op 08388,2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

/

Tracked In Water, Failure to Demonstrate When Area Last Inspected Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s failure to demonstrate when the area where the slip and fall occurred was last inspected precluded summary judgment in defendant’s favor. Evidence of general cleaning procedures is not enough to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of an alleged dangerous condition (tracked in water here):

While a “defendant [is] not required to cover all of its floors with mats, nor to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain” … , a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action … .

To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. Neither the affidavit of the defendant’s operations manager, nor the deposition testimony of the defendant’s asset protection manager established when the area where the plaintiff fell, or any of the entrances to the store, were last inspected in relation to the plaintiff’s fall.  Milorava v Lord & Taylor Holdings, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08390, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

/

Question of Fact Whether Hospital Had a Duty to Safeguard Plaintiff from Actions by Third Parties

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether defendant hospital (“Winthrop defendants”) had a duty to safeguard plaintiff-patient from harm caused by the emergency medical technicians (EMT’s) who transported plaintiff to the hospital. Plaintiff was brought to the hospital by ambulance for dialysis. The EMT’s placed plaintiff on a scale and left. Plaintiff fell when he was on the scale:

A hospital has a duty to safeguard the welfare of its patients, even from harm inflicted by third persons, measured by the capacity of the patient to provide for his or her own safety” … . “This sliding scale of duty is limited, however; it does not render a hospital an insurer of patient safety or require it to keep each patient under constant surveillance. As with any liability in tort, the scope of a hospital’s duty is circumscribed by those risks which are reasonably foreseeable” … .

Here, the Winthrop defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not breach a duty owed to the decedent. The decedent was transported to the Winthrop defendants’ facility for dialysis treatment, and a witness for the Winthrop defendants testified at his deposition that the weighing of the decedent, on the Winthrop defendants’ premises, was a critical component of that treatment. It was reasonably foreseeable that a patient suffering from end-stage renal disease, who was transported to the Winthrop defendants’ facility by ambulance and in a stretcher, could fall while being weighed-in at the dialysis unit, if not properly supervised. Thus, the decedent’s injury was reasonably foreseeable to the Winthrop defendants.

In support of their motion, the Winthrop defendants submitted deposition testimony indicating that it was customary practice for EMTs of transportation companies to be responsible for weighing patients brought to the dialysis unit on a stretcher prior to transferring care of the patient to the Winthrop defendants’ dialysis nurses. However, they did not present any evidence that there was any written policy or agreement to that effect. Under these circumstances, the deposition testimony submitted by the Winthrop defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not owe a duty to the decedent. Patel v American Med. Response, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08395, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

/ , ,

County Did Not Demonstrate Its Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Re: Obstructed Intersection

The Second Department determined the county did not demonstrate (as a matter of law) it was entitled to qualified immunity for  the placement of a sensor station and the failure to trim the nearby hedges. The complaint alleged the sensor station and hedges obstructed plaintiff’s view of oncoming traffic, resulting in an accident. The county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The court explained the analytical criteria:

A governmental body owes a nondelegable duty to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . However, a governmental body is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway safety planning decision … . Such immunity is predicated upon an ability to demonstrate that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberative decision-making process … .

Contrary to the County’s contention, it did not sustain its prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity. The County failed to demonstrate, inter alia, that its placement of the sensor station cabinet and its decision to refrain from trimming the hedge were highway safety planning decisions resulting from a deliberative decision-making process of the type afforded immunity from judicial interference … . Iacone v Passanisi, 2015 NY Slip Op 08386, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

/

Question of Fact Whether ​”Intervening Criminal Act” at Homeless Facility Was Foreseeable

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether an attack by one resident upon another resident of a facility for disabled homeless people was foreseeable:

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants, the owner and operator of a transitional facility for disabled homeless people, breached their common-law duty to provide reasonable security measures to protect plaintiff’s decedent from foreseeable harm … . The fatal attack on decedent by a fellow resident was immediately preceded by two prior physical attacks, by the same resident, and police officers responding to the earlier attacks had told defendants’ staff members to keep the two residents apart.

In light of the conflicting testimony as to the perpetrator’s demeanor prior to the final attack and whether defendants were on notice of his alleged threat to continue the attack on decedent, it is for a jury to determine whether a further attack was foreseeable. The fact that defendants may not have been able to “anticipate the precise manner of the [attack] or the exact extent of injuries. . .does not preclude liability as a matter of law where the general risk and character of injuries are foreseeable” … . Furthermore, while unforeseeable and intentional criminal acts by third parties are supervening acts which sever the causal connection with any alleged negligence … , here, “the alleged intervening criminal act is itself the foreseeable harm that shapes the duty [of care sought to be] imposed” … . Corporan v Barrier Free Living Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08351, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ ,

Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)

In a detailed and fact-specified full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in an action under the Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL), the First Department, determined plaintiff, a judgment creditor with an unpaid judgment against a partnership, could not reach a $425,000 payment made by the partnership to a limited partner. The court held the payment was not fraudulent, constituted a partnership distribution, and was subject to the three-year statute of limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA), not the six-year statute of limitations in the Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL). Therefore, plaintiff’s action seeking the recover the payment was time-barred;

RLPA (Partnership Law) § 121-607 prohibits limited partnerships from making distributions “to a partner to the extent that, at the time of the distribution, after giving effect to the distribution, all liabilities of the limited partnership. . . exceed the fair market value of the assets of the limited partnership” (Partnership Law § 121-607[a]) … . A limited partner who knowingly receives a prohibited distribution is liable to the partnership in the amount of the distribution (§ 121-607[b]). However, “a limited partner who receives a wrongful distribution . . . shall have no liability under this article or other applicable law for the amount of the distribution after the expiration of three years from the date of the distribution” (§ 121-607[c]). … [T]he Limited Liability Company Law (LLCL) contains a similar limitation on distributions to members (LLCL §§ 102[i], 508[a]). Peckar & Abramson, P.C. v Lyford Holdings, Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 08363, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ ,

People Were Not Required to Disclose (Prior to Trial) Confession Made by Defendant to Health Care Worker

The First Department noted the People were not required to disclose, prior to trial, a confession defendant made to a health care worker (because the health care worker was not connected to law enforcement):

… [M]idway through their case, the People introduced a previously undisclosed confession that defendant made to a health care worker at a hospital where he was being treated for a suicide attempt. This statement tended to corroborate a similar confession that defendant made to a detective shortly thereafter. It is undisputed that the People had no statutory duty to disclose this statement, because it was not made to anyone connected with law enforcement (see CPL 240.20[1][a]), and because no Rosario material was involved. Defendant nevertheless complains that his due process right to a fair trial was violated by the timing of the disclosure, because he would have formulated a different defense had he known the People intended to introduce a confession to a civilian witness. However, we find no evidence of deceit or trickery on the part of the People, and defendant’s claim of prejudice is unpersuasive. … [T]here was no misrepresentation that the undisclosed evidence did not exist, and the trial had not progressed to the point where defendant could not have adjusted his defense, or requested less drastic relief than a mistrial.

Defense counsel did not object to the health care worker’s testimony on the ground of physician-patient privilege, and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. People v Tayo, 2015 NY Slip Op 08353, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ , ,

Question of Fact Whether Real Estate Broker “Launched an Instrument of Harm” In an Apartment Being Shown to Plaintiff; Evidence of Custom Not Enough to Shift the Burden of Proof in Premises Liability Action

The First Department determined defendant real estate broker’s (Prudential/Leonhardt’s) motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case should not have been granted. As an apartment was being shown by the real estate broker, plaintiff tripped and fell when her foot became tangled in a drapery cord which was on the floor. The broker (Leonhardt) submitted evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment stating that she did not remember whether she opened the drapes on the day in question, and further stating that her habit was to hang the cord up when she did open the drapes. The court held the broker’s evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the broker did not “launch an instrument of harm,” i.e., cause the cord to be on the floor. Therefore, the contract between the broker and the owner of the apartment could have given rise to a duty of care owed by the broker to the plaintiff:

We thus turn to the … potential predicate for finding third-party tort liability, which rests on whether Prudential or Leonhardt launched an instrument of harm. Since they were the movants for summary judgment, Prudential and Leonhardt had the prima facie burden of demonstrating that there were no triable issues of fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue … . Leonhardt’s deposition testimony, and her affidavit in support of the motion, established that it was possible that she opened the drapes before the accident occurred, although she was not able to state with a reasonable degree of certainty that she did. If indeed she had opened the drapes, Leonhardt surmised, she would have wrapped the cord around the hook, because that is what she always did. However, evidence of a particular custom is insufficient to shift the burden in a premises liability case, because the defendant is required to proffer “specific evidence as to [her] activities on the day of the accident” … . Here, since Leonhardt had no specific recollection concerning the opening of the drapes on the day of the accident, she and Prudential were unable to eliminate the possibility that they were responsible for the hazardous placement of the cord on the floor. Accordingly, they failed to meet their prima facie burden, and the court should have denied their motion for summary judgment. Stimmel v Osherow, 2015 NY Slip Op 08340, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/ ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Deemed a Verified Claim to Be a Summons and Complaint Under the Authority of CPLR 2001 (Allowing Correction of Mistakes in the Method of Filing)

Reversing Supreme Court, the Fourth Department determined that a verified claim filed by the plaintiff should not have been deemed a summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 2001 (which allows correction or clarification of a mistake in the method of filing):

Plaintiff filed a verified claim in this action and, before answering, defendant filed a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiff had “yet to file a Summons or a Complaint” and that “a complete failure to file is a jurisdictional defect.” Relying upon CPLR 2001, Supreme Court deemed the claim to be a complaint and excused the failure to file a summons as “an irregularity that shall be disregarded in this case.” That was error. We agree with defendant that CPLR 2001 does not permit a court to disregard the complete failure to file a summons, i.e., an initial paper necessary to commence an action … . As recognized by the Court of Appeals in quoting from the Senate Introducer’s Memorandum in support of the bill that amended CPLR 2001, the statute may be invoked as a basis to correct or clarify ” a mistake in the method of filing, AS OPPOSED TO A MISTAKE IN WHAT IS FILED’ “… . Fox v City of Utica, 2015 NY Slip Op 08267, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

/ ,

Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial on the drug possession and drug paraphernalia counts. Defendant was convicted based upon a “constructive possession” theory (i.e., possession of contraband based upon defendant’s dominion and control over the premises where the contraband is found). As police officers were conducting a search, and as defendant was handcuffed and lying on the floor, an officer asked defendant where he resided. Defendant answered “here.” The People relied heavily on defendant’s answer to prove constructive possession of contraband found on the premises. Under these circumstances, the pedigree question (where do you reside) was designed to elicit an incriminating response and, because the statement was “unwarned,” the answer should have been suppressed:

Generally, a defendant’s answer concerning his address, when “elicited through routine administrative questioning that [is] not designed to elicit an incriminating response” … , will be considered pedigree information not subject to CPL 710.30 notice requirements even if the statement later proves to be inculpatory … . That is “[b]ecause responses to routine booking questions—pedigree questions . . . —are not suppressible even when obtained in violation of Miranda [and, therefore, a] defendant lacks a constitutional basis upon which to challenge the voluntariness of his [or her] statement” … . “[W]here there is no question of voluntariness, the People are not required to serve defendant with notice” … .

As the Court of Appeals recognized, however, “the People may not rely on the pedigree exception if the questions, though facially appropriate, are likely to elicit incriminating admissions because of the circumstances of the particular case” (id.). Although the question concerning defendant’s address appears to have been a facially appropriate question, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case and, more specifically, under the circumstances in which the question was asked, the question was likely to elicit an incriminating admission and had a “necessary connection to an essential element of [the possessory] crimes charged” under Penal Law §§ 220.16 and 220.50 (2) … . We agree with defendant that the error in admitting that statement cannot be considered harmless insofar as it relates to the possessory counts of the indictment inasmuch as the People relied heavily on that statement to establish defendant’s constructive possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia … . People v Slade, 2015 NY Slip Op 08252, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

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