You are here: / Frye Hearing Should Have Been Held to Determine Admissibility of an Actuarial...

Search Results

/ ,

Frye Hearing Should Have Been Held to Determine Admissibility of an Actuarial Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool as Proof of a Mental Abnormality

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the trial court refused defendant’s request for a Frye hearing.  The People introduced the Hare PCL-R Instrument (an actuarial recidivism risk assessment tool), which measures psychopathy, during the mental abnormality phase of the trial. The use of the PCL-R to prove a mental abnormality was deemed “novel” by the Second Department.  Therefore, a Frye hearing should have been held to determine its admissibility for the “novel” purpose:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the appellant’s pretrial motion which was to conduct a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013) concerning the admissibility of the Hare PCL-R Instrument (hereinafter the PCL-R), which measures psychopathy, during the mental abnormality phase of the trial … . While the use of actuarial risk assessment instruments is scientifically accepted as a means to measure the risk of recidivism, the use of such instruments to determine the existence of a mental abnormality is novel, and the State’s bare statement to the contrary was insufficient to satisfy the “general acceptance” test of admissibility … . For these same reasons, the court erred in concluding that the probative value of the PCL-R outweighed any prejudicial effect of the terms “psychopath” or “psychopathy.” Significantly, the State’s expert … testified that the PCL-R is not a “direct assessment of mental abnormality” and was “not designed” to measure “[h]ow much more difficult [it is] for somebody who has a high psychopathy score to control their behavior [as compared to] somebody who has a low score” and that “would be [a] misuse of the test.” Under the particular circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that this error was harmless, since there is a reasonable possibility that the jury could have reached another verdict had it not heard such testimony … . Matter of State of New York v Ian I., 2015 NY Slip Op 02771, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ ,

Town Failed to Show Routine Inspection of Sewer System—Summary Judgment in Sewer-Backup Case Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the town was not entitled to summary judgment in a case alleging the failure to maintain the town’s sewer system.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

A municipality is immune from liability “arising out of claims that it negligently designed [a] sewerage system” … . However, a municipality “is not entitled to governmental immunity arising out of claims that it negligently maintained the sewerage system as these claims challenge conduct which is ministerial in nature”… . In order for a municipality to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in sewer backup cases, the municipality must show that it had no ” notice of a dangerous condition,'” and that “it regularly inspected and maintained the subject sewer line” … .

Here, the defendant Town …, failed to establish, prima facie, that it regularly inspected and maintained the subject sewer lines … . The evidence submitted by the Town in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it demonstrated that the subject sewer lines had not been inspected more recently than approximately 19 months prior to the date of the sewage backup into the plaintiffs’ residence … . Under these circumstances, the Town failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Brandenburg v County of Rockland Sewer Dist. #1, State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 02719, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ ,

Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003 Is a Matter of Right Not Dependent Upon the Court’s Discretion or a Demand

The Second Department noted that the defendant who had obtained an arbitration award was entitled to interest on the award pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003:

…[P]ursuant to CPLR 5002, the defendant was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the arbitration award, April 28, 2009 … . “Interest under CPLR 5002 is a matter of right and is not dependent upon the court’s discretion or a specific demand” … . It “is simply the cost of having the use of another person’s money for a specified period” and is not a penalty on the party owing money … . Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to prejudgment interest accruing from the date of the arbitration award, and to postjudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5003. Dermigny v Harper, 2015 NY Slip Op 02722, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ , ,

No Liability to Third Party Stemming from Contract to Install a Sign

The Second Department determined the plaintiff’s verdict in a slip and fall case was properly set aside.  Plaintiff tripped on a sign that had fallen and was covered by snow.  The evidence did not demonstrate the sign company (Everlast) “launched an instrument of harm” so as to trigger tort liability in favor of a third party arising from a contract.  The analytical criteria were explained:

” [A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party'” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this rule …, only one of which is pertinent to this case. Under that exception, a party who enters into a contract to render services may be liable in tort to a third party “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm'” … .

Here, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found that Everlast launched a force or instrument of harm … . In that respect, there was no direct evidence that Everlast was negligent in installing the sign seven months before the accident. Further, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found in favor of the plaintiff based upon circumstantial evidence, since the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to demonstrate that it was “more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … . Robinson v Limoncelli, 2015 NY Slip Op 02745, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ ,

Foreign Money Judgment Properly Enforced—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly enforced a Canadian money judgment.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“Under CPLR article 53, a judgment issued by the court of a foreign country is recognized and enforceable in New York State if it is final, conclusive and enforceable when rendered'” … . “[A] foreign country judgment is considered conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money'” … . “However, a foreign country judgment is not conclusive, and thus may not be recognized, if (1) it was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law’ or (2) the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant'” … . “A plaintiff seeking enforcement of a foreign country judgment bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the mandatory grounds for nonrecognition do not exist” … .

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is part of a judicial system that provides impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process of law … and, here, that court had a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction over the defendant, as the defendant purposefully transacted business in Ontario (see CPLR 5305[b]; CPLR 302[a][1]…). Moreover, CPLR 5305(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, that a foreign country judgment “shall not be refused recognition” by New York “for lack of personal jurisdiction if . . . the defendant voluntarily appeared” in the foreign court proceedings for purposes other than “contesting the jurisdiction of the court” over him or her. Although the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was properly served with process in the Canadian action …, the plaintiff nonetheless demonstrated that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, as the defendant “voluntarily appeared” in the Canadian action (CPLR 5305[a][2]…) and “did more than [it] had to do to preserve a jurisdictional objection” … .  Gemstar Can., Inc. v George A. Fuller Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02726, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ ,

Tenant Has Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe

The Second Department noted that a tenant (TJX) has an obligation to keep the premises safe even if the landlord agreed in the lease to keep the premises in good repair.  Here it was alleged that water dripping from a fire escape resulted in an icy area on the abutting sidewalk where plaintiff fell:

“A tenant has a common-law duty to remove dangerous or defective conditions from the premises it occupies, even though the landlord may have explicitly agreed in the lease to maintain the premises and keep them in good repair” … . Here, TJX failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no duty to maintain the fire escape in a reasonably safe condition … . Sellitti v TJX Cos., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02748, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ ,

“Intrinsic” Versus “Extrinsic” Fraud as the Basis of a Motion to Open a Default Judgment/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect

In the context of a mortgage foreclosure, the defendant made a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to open a default judgment.  The Second Department determined the motion was properly denied and explained the difference between allegations of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” fraud as the basis of the motion.  The court noted that a lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect:

The defendant alleged, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), that the plaintiff committed “intrinsic fraud,” by submitting fraudulent documents in support of its claim for a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . She did not allege “extrinsic fraud,” which is “a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter” … . Therefore, the defendant was required to show a reasonable excuse for her default … . However, she failed to offer any excuse for her default … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 2015 NY Slip Op 02757, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ , ,

City Immune from Liability for Actions of Police Engaged in a Governmental Function–No Special Relationship with Plaintiff

The Second Department determined the police officers were engaged in a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the city and the plaintiff. The city was therefore immune from liability.  Plaintiff called the police when he saw someone (Moran) enter a residence.  When the police arrived plaintiff accompanied them to the residence.  Moran ran from the house and punched plaintiff. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged the police failed to protect him:

…[T]he officers’ conduct during the incident constituted a governmental function … . “Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to furnish police protection, this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created” … . Therefore, the City cannot be held liable unless there existed a special relationship between it and the plaintiff … . “The elements of this special relationship are: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Here, the City made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that no such special relationship existed which would give rise to a duty of care to the plaintiff individually … . The evidence submitted by the City demonstrated that the police officers were performing their general duty to the public at large by responding to a call regarding a completed crime, and in the course of the investigation, made no promises to the plaintiff, in word or action, that gave rise to an affirmative duty of care running to the plaintiff personally. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Philip v Moran, 2015 NY Slip Op 02742, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ ,

Concise Description of the Application of the DeBour Street-Encounter Criteria Leading to the Seizure of a Weapon

The Second Department, in finding the seizure of a gun from the defendant proper, provided a concise application of the DeBour street encounter factors:

The arresting officer testified that he saw, from a distance of “[l]ess than a foot” away, “what looked to be” “two to three inches” of “the butt of a firearm” that was “pulling down” the defendant’s rear pants pocket. These observations gave the officer an objective, credible reason to approach the defendant … . Upon seeing the officer, the defendant immediately turned sideways to obscure his rear pants pockets from the officer’s view, giving the officer a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” justifying greater intrusion to conduct an inquiry … . At that point, when the defendant lowered his hands in the direction of his waist area, the officer had reason to suspect that he was in danger of physical injury and was authorized to conduct a protective frisk (see CPL 140.50[3]…). Probable cause for the defendant’s arrest arose after the officer grabbed the defendant’s hands for his own safety and, upon “wrestling” with the defendant, saw that the item in the defendant’s back pocket was, in fact, a firearm … . Thus, the record establishes that the officer’s conduct was justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope and intensity to the circumstances of the encounter as it developed … . Moreover, given the legality of the officer’s actions, the defendant’s claim that his post-arrest statement to police should be suppressed as the product of an illegal search or seizure is without merit… . People v Owens, 2015 NY Slip Op 02790, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

/ , ,

Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendants in a lead paint case failed to demonstrate they did not have notice of the dangerous condition.  The court explained the relevant criteria:

Under New York common law, a landowner “has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “[I]n order for a landlord to be held liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” … . Constructive notice of a hazardous lead-based paint condition may be established by proof “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children, and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … . Greene v Mullen, 2015 NY Slip Op 02729, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

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