You are here: / Violation of Confrontation Clause Was Harmless Error

Search Results

/ , ,

Violation of Confrontation Clause Was Harmless Error

The Second Department determined the admission of hearsay DNA evidence (a report made by an analyst who did not testify), although it violated the Confrontation Clause, was harmless error because the inadmissible evidence was cumulative:

The defendant correctly contends that his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated when the Supreme Court admitted a nontestifying DNA analyst’s report linking the defendant to DNA evidence recovered at the crime scene … .

“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” … . “Constitutional error requires reversal unless the error’s impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt'” … . “This determination is based on a review of the entire record”… ..

Here, in addition to the erroneously admitted report, the People presented evidence directly linking the defendant to the burglary. Specifically, the nontestifying analyst’s supervisor testified that she herself analyzed the raw data from the evidence collected at the crime scene and the DNA collected from the defendant and drew her own conclusions. Thus, the erroneously admitted report was cumulative, as the expert who did testify reached that same conclusion after comparing the same raw data relied upon by the nontestifying analyst. Since there was no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted report contributed to the defendant’s conviction, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Cartagena, 2015 NY Slip Op 02136, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ , ,

Court Should Have Taken Judicial Notice of Father’s False Allegations in Prior Proceedings in the Same Court/Court Should Not Have Drawn an Adverse Inference from Mother’s Failure to Call a Witness without Informing Mother of Its Intent to Do So

The Second Department, in reversing Family Court finding that mother committed the family offense of assault, determined Family Court should have taken judicial notice of father’s false allegations in custody proceedings in the same court and should not have drawn an adverse inference from the mother’s failure to call a witness without giving mother the opportunity to explain the witness’ absence:

The Family Court improperly rejected the mother’s request that it take judicial notice of the determination in the parties’ prior custody proceeding, in the same court, in which the father admittedly made false allegations. That proceeding, and the court’s findings therein regarding the father, were relevant to the court’s assessment of the father’s credibility in this matter. Accordingly, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to take judicial notice of the prior custody proceeding … .

Additionally, the Family Court erred in drawing a negative inference based on the mother’s failure to call the child’s maternal grandmother as a witness. ” A party is entitled to a missing witness charge when the party establishes that an uncalled witness possessing information on a material issue would be expected to provide noncumulative testimony in favor of the opposing party and is under the control of and available to that party'” … . The court sua sponte drew a negative inference based on the mother’s failure to call the grandmother as a witness, and failed to advise the mother that it intended to do so … . Matter of Spooner-Boyke v Charles, 2015 NY Slip Op 02132, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/

When the One-Year Statute of Limitations Begins to Run for False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution and Assault and Battery Causes of Action Explained/Elements of False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution Explained

The Second Department explained when the one-year statute of limitations begins to run for false arrest, malicious prosecution and assault and battery causes of action.  The court further explained the elements of false arrest and malicious prosecution:

“Causes of action based on false arrest . . . accrue upon the subject’s release[ ] from confinement’ and are governed by a one-year statute of limitations” … . “The one-year statute of limitations applicable to a cause of action for malicious prosecution (see CPLR 215[3]) does not begin to run until favorable termination of the underlying criminal proceeding” … . * * *

…Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the … defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, which alleged assault and battery, insofar as asserted against them as time-barred. That cause of action is also governed by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 215 (see CPLR 215[3]…). It is undisputed that the alleged assault and battery occurred more than one year prior to the commencement of this action. * * *

“A civilian defendant who merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities, who are then free to exercise their own independent judgment as to whether an arrest will be made and criminal charges filed, will not be held liable for false arrest or malicious prosecution” … . To be held liable for false arrest, “the defendant must have affirmatively induced the officer to act, such as taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the officer is not acting of his [or her] own volition'” … . Similarly, in order for a civilian defendant to be considered to have initiated the criminal proceeding so as to support a cause of action based on malicious prosecution, ” it must be shown that defendant played an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act'” … . “Merely giving false information to the authorities does not constitute initiation of the proceeding without an additional allegation or showing that, at the time the information was provided, the defendant knew it to be false, yet still gave it to the police or District Attorney… . Williams v CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02115, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ ,

Proof of General Cleaning Procedures Not Sufficient for Summary Judgment to Defendant in a Slip and Fall Case

In a slip and fall case, reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department explained (once again) that proof of general cleaning procedures (as opposed to proof when the area in question was last inspected or cleaned) is not sufficient to warrant summary judgment to the defendant:

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . To meet their burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendants were required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the injured plaintiff’s fall … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, the affidavit of the Safety and Security Manager for the subject IKEA store, which was submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, only provided information about the store’s general cleaning and inspection procedures concerning the promenade, and did not show when the subject area had last been inspected or cleaned prior to the happening of the accident … . Thus, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition was too trivial to be actionable, or was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. Barris v One Beard St., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02083, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ ,

Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City Did Not Have Written Notice of Defect in Tree Well Where Plaintiff Fell

The Second Department noted that NYC abutting-property-owners are not liable for the condition of tree wells within the sidewalk.  Here the city had not received notice of a defect in the tree well where plaintiff fell, therefore summary judgment was granted to the city:

A tree well does not fall within the applicable Administrative Code definition of “sidewalk” and, thus, “section 7-210 does not impose civil liability on property owners for injuries that occur in city-owned tree wells” … . * * *

“A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence; and (2) where a special use confers a special benefit upon the locality … . The affirmative creation exception is “limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … .

In order to hold the City liable for injuries resulting from defects in tree wells in City-owned sidewalks, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the City has received prior written notice of the defect or that an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]…). Donadio v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02093, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ ,

Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Cause of Her Fall Without Resorting to Speculation

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant in a slip and fall case because the plaintiff could not identify the case of her fall:

“Ordinarily, a defendant moving for summary judgment in a trip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing that it did not create the hazardous condition that allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it. However, a defendant can make its prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation” … .

“[A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” … . “Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused a slip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer conjecture” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . Mitgang v PJ Venture HG, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02101, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ , ,

The Jury Should Have Been Instructed on the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine—Infection Developed After Injection

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted because the jury should have been instructed on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.  Plaintiff developed an infection after a cortisone injection.  There was expert testimony that such an infection would not develop if standard procedures had been followed:

Under appropriate circumstances, the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be invoked to allow the factfinder to infer negligence from the mere happening of an event (see Restatement [Second] of Torts § 328D). “Res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine of ancient origin …, derives from the understanding that some events ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence” … . “In addition to this first prerequisite, plaintiff must establish, second, that the injury was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant and, third, that no act or negligence on the plaintiff’s part contributed to the happening of the event … . Once plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof on these three elements, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine permits the jury to infer negligence from the mere fact of the occurrence” … . Moreover, “expert testimony may be properly used to help the jury bridge the gap’ between its own common knowledge, which does not encompass the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to reach a conclusion that the occurrence would not normally take place in the absence of negligence, and the common knowledge of physicians, which does .. .

Here, the plaintiff presented expert testimony that a MRSA infection from an injection does not occur if the podiatrist adheres to the accepted standard of care. Bernard v Bernstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 02084, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ ,

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable—Criteria Described

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to the out-of-possession landlords and explained the applicable law. Plaintiff’s leg went through the roof of landlords’ building:

“An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct” … . Here, the building defendants established, prima facie, that I Bldg and Surfside were out-of-possession landlords with no contractual obligation by submitting the lease, which obligated the tenant to maintain the premises and make all structural and nonstructural repairs … . Although I Bldg and Surfside retained a right to enter the premises, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition on the premises violated an applicable statutory provision sufficient to impose liability upon them … . The plaintiff did not contend that the building defendants assumed a duty to repair the premises by virtue of a course of conduct. Martin v I Bldg Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02100, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ , ,

Failure to Link Specific Monetary Loss to Acts or Omissions of the Attorneys Required Dismissal

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s legal malpractice action should have been dismissed because the plaintiff did not demonstrate a specific monetary loss was proximately caused by the negligence of the attorneys. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys failed to ensure that a note, guarantee and mortgage were enforceable against Nina, who disaffirmed liability on the ground of legal incapacity:

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages … . To establish causation, the plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, “but for the attorney’s negligence” … .

…The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the amount it could or would have collected if the note, the guaranty, and mortgage had been enforceable against Nina … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was unable to recover the amounts due under the note by other legal means available to it under the terms of the note and guaranty, or that it was unable to obtain equitable relief from Nina even after she disaffirmed liability on the ground of legal incapacity (see Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 14, Comments b, c; see also Restatement of Restitution § 139). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the extent to which it would have been unable to enforce the note and the guaranty after it was disavowed by Nina, and the precise extent to which it would have been able to recover had the note, the guaranty, and the mortgage been enforceable against her, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that any negligence on the part of [the attorneys] was a proximate cause of actual and ascertainable damages … . Quantum Corporate Funding, Ltd. v Ellis, 2015 NY Slip Op 02104, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ ,

Stipulation of Settlement Not Enforceable/All Material Terms Not Included

The Second Department determined the purported stipulation of settlement did not meet the standards set forth in CPLR 2104:

Absent the formalities required by statute, a stipulation of settlement is not enforceable (see CPLR 2104…). Pursuant to CPLR 2104, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” The stipulation must be “definite and complete” … , and all material terms must be included … .

In this case, the alleged written stipulation of settlement …, entitled “Agreement in Principle,” was not signed by all the parties to the litigation, and the agreement did not state that the two signatories to the agreement intended to bind all the parties to the agreement’s terms. Further, as a material term of the agreement at issue was contingent upon the parties’ executing a formal agreement, the agreement constituted a mere agreement to agree, which is unenforceable … . De Well Container Shipping Corp. v Mingwei Guo, 2015 NY Slip Op 02090, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

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