You are here: / Sole Eyewitness’ Testimony at Trial Indicating She Could Not Identify...

Search Results

/ ,

Sole Eyewitness’ Testimony at Trial Indicating She Could Not Identify the Shooter (Because of the Passage of Time and the Effects of Alcoholism and Depression) Did Not Allow the Prosecutor to Impeach Her with Her Grand Jury Testimony and Prior Identification of the Shooter

In reversing defendant’s conviction, the Second Department explained that the prosecution should not have been allowed to impeach its own witness when the witness failed to identify the shooter in her trial testimony.  In addition, it was error to allow a detective to testify that the witness previously identified the defendant:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach the sole eyewitness with her grand jury testimony and photo array identification of the shooter. A party may impeach its own witness with prior inconsistent statements only when the testimony of that witness on a material issue tends to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damages the party’s case (see CPL 60.35…). “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event, whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” … . Here, the testimony of the eyewitness that she did not remember the face of the shooter and could not identify the shooter because of the passage of time between the shooting and the trial, and because of her struggles with alcohol and depression, did not tend to disprove or affirmatively damage the People’s case … . Accordingly, it was error to permit the prosecutor to impeach the testimony of the eyewitness with her grand jury testimony and photo array identification. People v Ayala, 2014 NY Slip Op 07362, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ ,

Choice of Law Analysis Re: Liability Insurance Contracts [Extraordinarily Complex Lawsuit Stemming from Mold Rendering a Newly-Constructed Apartment Complex Uninhabitable]

The Second Department sorted out an extraordinary number of coverage, defense and indemnification issues in declaratory judgment actions stemming from mold which made an apartment complex uninhabitable.  The decision deals with too many specific questions to allow summarization.  With respect to a choice of law issue, the court wrote:

Under Pennsylvania law, not only are damages to the work product itself not considered an occurrence, but “damages that are a reasonably foreseeable result of the faulty workmanship are also not covered under a commercial general liability policy” … . The Pennsylvania courts have emphasized fortuity in determining whether a claim constitutes an occurrence … . Mold growth and resulting sickness and property damage would likely be considered by the Pennsylvania courts not to be fortuitous, but, rather, to be, from an objective standpoint, a reasonably foreseeable, natural consequence of faulty workmanship which allowed water to infiltrate the buildings … . Accordingly, because a conflict exists between Pennsylvania and New York law, New York’s choice-of-law rules must be applied to determine which state’s law governs … .

“In the context of liability insurance contracts, the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties’ will generally be the jurisdiction which the parties understood was to be the principal location of the insured risk'” … . However, ” where it is necessary to determine the law governing a liability insurance policy covering risks in multiple states, the state of the insured’s domicile should be regarded as a proxy for the principal location of the insured risk'” … . Because the subject policy covered risks in multiple states, and because Erie’s and Penn National’s named insured was domiciled in Pennsylvania, it is appropriate to apply that state’s law. QBE Ins Corp v Adjo Contr Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07342, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ ,

Re: a Slip and Fall in a McDonald’s Restaurant, the McDonald’s Defendants Were Not Liable as an Out-of-Possession Landlord, a Franchisor, or a Property Owner—Summary Judgment Properly Granted

In dismissing a slip and fall complaint against the McDonald’s (restaurant) defendants, the Second Department explained that the defendants could not be held liable as an out-of-possession landlord, a franchisor, or as an entity responsible for a dangerous condition on the property:

The McDonald’s defendants established, prima facie, that McDonald’s Corporation was an out-of-possession landlord on the date of the subject accident, and that it had no duty to maintain or repair the leased premises where the accident occurred. Therefore, the McDonald’s defendants met their initial burden of establishing that McDonald’s Corporation owed no duty to the plaintiff … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Further, McDonald’s Corporation was not liable based upon its status as a franchisor. In determining whether a defendant, as a franchisor, may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most significant factor is the degree of control that the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee or, more specifically, the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred … . Here, the McDonald’s defendants tendered sufficient evidence in support of their motion to establish, prima facie, that McDonald’s Corporation lacked the requisite control over the alleged causes of the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

In addition, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of New York, Inc. Liability for a dangerous condition on property is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property … . The McDonald’s defendants established, prima facie, that McDonald’s Restaurants of New York, Inc., did not own, occupy, control, or have a special use of the subject property at the time of the accident and, thus, could not be held liable for injuries caused by the allegedly dangerous conditions … . Khanimov v McDonald’s Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07332, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ ,

Hospital Not Vicariously Liable for Acts of Non-Employee Midwife/Hospital May Be Liable for Staff’s Failure to Summon Obstetrician When Problems with the Birth Developed/Midwife’s Assistant, Who Worked Under the Supervision of the Midwife and Did Not Exercise Independent Judgment, Not Liable

The Second Department determined: (1) the hospital (Phelps) defendants were not vicariously liable for the actions of a midwife who was not an employee; (2) there was a question of fact whether the hospital staff was negligent in failing to summon an obstetrician when problems with the birth developed; and (3) the action against the midwife’s assistant (Milligan) was properly dismissed because the assistant worked under the supervision of the midwife and did not exercise independent judgment:

In general, “a hospital may not be held [liable] for the acts of [a physician] who was not an employee of the hospital, but one of a group of independent contractors” … . However, a hospital can be held concurrently liable with a private attending physician if its employees commit independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice … . “When supervised medical personnel are not exercising their independent medical judgment, they cannot be held liable for medical malpractice unless the directions from the supervising superior or doctor so greatly deviates from normal medical practice that they should be held liable for failing to intervene”  * * *

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the Phelps defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged they were concurrently liable with Mahoney for the alleged independent negligence of their nursing staff. In opposition to the Phelps defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Phelps defendants’ nursing staff departed from good and acceptable medical practice by failing to summon an obstetrician when the infant plaintiff’s fetal heart rate dropped below normal… . …

Milligan met her prima facie burden of demonstrating that, during the infant plaintiff’s birth, she did not exercise any independent medical judgment, but was under the direct supervision of Mahoney, the attending nurse-midwife, whose directions did not so greatly deviate from normal medical practice that she should be held liable for failing to intervene. Zhuzhingo v Milligan, 2014 NY Slip Op 07350, 2nd Dept 10-29-14 

 

/ ,

Personal Injury Suit by Student Against School District Alleging Negligent Supervision Properly Survived Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined a personal injury suit by a student alleging negligent supervision properly survived summary judgment.  The student was injured when she was pushed by those behind her into a door which should not have been locked:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . While schools are not insurers of student safety, they have a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward their students as would a reasonably prudent parent under comparable circumstances … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants, which included the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff and Breen, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that they properly supervised the infant plaintiff and her physical education class or that their alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . In addition, the defendants’ evidence was insufficient to establish that the locked door of the girls’ locker room was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances … . “Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances,” as the condition may be rendered a trap where it is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted … . Maneri v Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07336, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/

Insufficient Proof Plaintiff Was Defendant’s Special Employee

The Second Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff was its special employee.  Therefore summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s personal injury suit based upon plaintiff’s receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits from his general employer should not have been granted:

“The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … . In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, a court should consider factors such as the right to control the employee’s work, the method of payment, the furnishing of equipment, and the right to discharge … . “A significant and weighty factor . . . is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work'” … .

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendant failed to come forward with sufficient evidence of a special employment relationship to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since its submissions on the motion did not establish, inter alia, that it controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff’s work … . Nolan v Irwin Contr Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07339, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ ,

Although Not the Case Here, the Court Explained How a Collision Between a Vehicle Entering the Roadway and a Vehicle Which Is In the Roadway (and Has the Right-of-Way) Can Possibly Have Two Proximate Causes

The Second Department determined the defendant, who apparently struck plaintiff’s car as plaintiff pulled into traffic from a parking lot, was entitled to summary judgment.  Plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law based on a violation of Vehicle and Traffic law 1143, which requires a driver entering a roadway to yield to drivers within the right-of-way.  And there was no showing defendant was negligent.  The decision has a good explanation of how there can be two proximate causes of an accident under such facts (not the case here):

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident …, because each driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident … . As a result, even where there is evidence that another driver involved in the accident was negligent as a matter of law due to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, “the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” … . Thus, a driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found to have contributed to the happening of the accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident … . However, “[a] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle that has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . Desio v Cerebral Palsy Transp Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07322, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ , ,

How to Handle a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim When Documentary Evidence Is Considered Explained/Dismissal of Foreclosure Action Based on Lack of Standing Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits/Striking of a Foreclosure Complaint for Failure to Comply with a Discovery Order Is Not a Dismissal on the Merits

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not have a cause of action to discharge his mortgage.  The court explained how a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a claim is handled when documentary evidence is submitted and considered on the motion.  [With respect to the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant could not institute new foreclosure proceedings against him, the court noted that the dismissal of a foreclosure complaint premised on a lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes, and the striking of a complaint for noncompliance with a discovery order is also not a dismissal on the merits:]

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate … . Caliguri v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 2014 NY Slip Op 07319, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/

Language In Bill of Particulars Was Necessary to Support Claim for Punitive Damages—Language Should Not Have Been Struck as “Scandalous or Prejudicial”

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s order that plaintiff remove language from the bill of particulars which Supreme Court deemed “scandalous or prejudicial:”

… Counsel … made an oral application, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3024, to strike certain language from the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. … The court … directed the plaintiff to remove allegations that the respondents engaged in “recklessness/reckless, intentional and malicious conduct, gross negligence, blatantly illegal conduct/illegal conduct” (hereinafter the subject language) from her bill of particulars … .  * * *

CPLR 3024(b) provides that “[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading.” This rule is applicable to bills of particulars as well … . In reviewing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3024(b), “the inquiry is whether the purportedly scandalous or prejudicial allegations are relevant to a cause of action” … . Matters that are unnecessary to the viability of the cause of action and would cause undue prejudice to the defendants should be stricken from the pleading or bill of particulars … .

The causes of action asserted by the plaintiff in the complaint demonstrate that the subject language was relevant to this matter, and necessary to support the pleading based on the punitive damages sought. Irving v Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 07330, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

/ , , ,

Criteria for Dismissal of a Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [Defense Based Upon Irrefutable Documentary Evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [Failure to State a Cause of Action] Explained

In the context of a legal  malpractice action, in affirming the denial of motions to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [defense founded on documentary evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [failure to state a claim]:

A party seeking relief pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that his or her defense is founded upon documentary evidence ” has the burden of submitting documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim'” … . In the instant matter, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants, consisting of the orders issued by the Supreme Court in the underlying action, failed to utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations of malpractice or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law in the instant action … . * * *

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court’s function is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove [his or her] claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that, but for the defendants’ negligence, including their failure to assert “appropriate claims against the proper parties, . . . the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim would have succeeded and resulted in a different, better and/or more positive outcome.” Construing the complaint liberally, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, as required, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice … . Tooma v Grossbarth, 2014 NY Slip Op 07347, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

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