You are here: / Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently...

Search Results

/

Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently Dangerous Condition and Whether the Hazard Was Latent or Open and Obvious

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the placement of an amusement ride on the sidewalk created an inherently dangerous condition.  Plaintiff turned a corner and was injured when he bumped into the machine

[Defendants’] submissions failed to establish that the Mickey Mouse ride had been placed on the sidewalk in such a manner as to comply with the New York City Administrative Code (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-136[a], [j]). Hence, they failed to exclude the possibility that the ride obstructed the sidewalk or otherwise created an inherently dangerous condition. Moreover, “the issue of whether a hazard is latent or open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” …. . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . Here, in view of the alleged circumstances of the plaintiff’s accident, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the condition was open and obvious. Toro v Friedland Props Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07960, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

/ ,

Reimbursement Cuts for Profit-Making Nursing Homes Did Not Violate Takings or Equal Protection Clauses

The Third Department determined the plaintiffs—profit-making businesses operating nursing homes—did not raise questions of fact about whether reductions in Medicaid reimbursement rates instituted in 2011 violated the Takings Clause and the Equal Protection Clause:

…”‘[W]here a service provider voluntarily participates in a price-regulated program or activity, there is no legal compulsion to provide service and thus there can be no taking'”… . * * *

Given [the] fundamental difference in the underlying economic purposes and incentives of proprietary and voluntary facilities, they are not similarly situated as they must be to sustain plaintiffs’ equal protection claim … . Bay Park Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation LLC v Shah, 516654, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

/

Object’s Fall of 1 ½ Feet Constituted Physically Significant Elevation Differential for Purposes of Requiring a Safety Device Pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1)

In this 240(1) action, the Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it found that the accident did not arise form a physically significant elevation differential.  Plaintiff was struck by part of a roll carrier (re: a roll of roofing membrane) after the roll fell to the roof. Prior to the incident the roll carrier had been positioned about a foot and a half above the roof:

In determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimis, we must take into account “‘the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent'” … .  Here, for purposes of defendants’ motion, plaintiff established that a membrane roll weighing between 600 and 800 pounds was hoisted by the roll carrier to a height of approximately 1½ feet off the roof’s surface at the time of the accident.  In our view, despite the relatively short distance that the membrane roll fell, it constituted a significant elevation differential given its substantial weight and the powerful force it generated when it fell, so as to require a safety device as set forth in Labor Law § 240 (1) … .  Accordingly, Supreme Court should not have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action on this basis.  Jackson v Heitman Funds/191 Colonie LLC. 516248, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

/

Father Demonstrated His Loss of Employment Justified a Downward Modification of Child Support

The Second Department determined Family Court erred when it held father had not demonstrated his loss of employment constituted a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances justifying a downward modification of his child support obligations:

Loss of employment may at times constitute a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances … . A party seeking a downward modification of his or her child support obligation based upon a loss of employment has the burden of demonstrating that he or she diligently sought to obtain employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity … .

Here, the father testified that he is unable to pay child support because he lost his prior job in October 2010. More specifically, he stated that he had been working at a restaurant in the dual capacity of manager and head waiter. Following his loss of that employment, he sought and obtained a position as a manager at a restaurant at a lesser salary, but could not find a position working in the dual capacity of manager and head waiter.

Under these circumstances, the father demonstrated that his loss of employment and obtainment of new employment at a lesser salary constituted a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances, and that he made a good faith effort to obtain new employment which was commensurate with his qualifications and experience… .  Matter of Dimaio v Dimaio, 2013 NY Slip Op 07969, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

 

/ ,

Evidence Relevant to a Reason to Fabricate is Never Collateral

The Third Department noted that the trial court erred (harmless) when it prohibited defendant from questioning witnesses against him (Corsi and Beebe) about grievances and a lawsuit defendant had filed.  Evidence of a witness’ reason to fabricate should not have been excluded as collateral:

…County Court improperly denied his motion requesting permission to question Corsi and Beebe about prior notices of discipline, grievances filed by defendant and defendant’s pending federal lawsuit … .  The court concluded that the issues were collateral and would be precluded unless the door were opened by a witness’s testimony reflecting bias or hostility toward defendant.  While “trial courts have broad discretion to keep the proceedings within manageable limits and to curtail exploration of collateral matters,” “extrinsic proof tending to establish a reason to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground”… .  People v Hughes, 105838, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

/

County Court Should Have Ordered a Hearing Re: Defendant’s 440 Motion to Vacate His Conviction—There Was Evidence Outside the Record that Required Development—Defendant Suffered from a Mental Illness and Was Taking Medications which May Have Affected His Judgment at the Time of the Plea Proceedings

The Third Department determined County Court erred when it did not order a hearing to determine defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea).  The motion, as well as other evidence in the record (i.e., the presentence report), indicated defendant suffered from a mental illness and was taking medications that may have clouded his judgment when the guilty plea was entered:

Defendant presented further evidence of his mental illness and use of psychotropic medications upon his CPL 440.10 motion. In his own affidavit, defendant recounted experiencing extreme anxiety leading to his hospitalization, and stated that the medications he was taking made him feel intoxicated and in a haze during the plea and sentencing proceedings.  He also submitted the affidavit of a forensic nurse consultant, who indicated that the side effects of the medications that defendant was taking included drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue and abnormal thinking, and noted that Zoloft was not recommended for individuals with bipolar disorder.  The nurse opined that the combination and quantity of medications that defendant was taking at the time of his plea and sentencing “most certainly” would have affected his cognitive ability to understand the proceedings.

Although postjudgment motions may often be determined upon the record and submissions, a hearing is required where facts outside the record are material and would entitle a defendant to relief (see CPL 440.30 [5]…). Here, the proof reveals that defendant suffers from a mental illness and was taking psychotropic medications, and further development of the record is required to determine the extent to which his mental capacity was impaired and whether this rendered him unable to enter a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.  A hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion is the appropriate vehicle for collecting further evidence on this issue and determining whether defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated as a result … .  Accordingly, we find that County Court erred in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing, and conclude that this matter must be remitted to County Court for this purpose. People v Hennessey, 105342, 3rd Dept  11-27-13

 

/ ,

The Prosecutor’s Summation Was Filled With Impermissible Statements and Suggestions, Requiring Reversal of Defendant’s Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because of the prosecutor’s impermissible statements in summation. The prosecutor vouched for his witnesses, suggested that in order to believe the defendant the jury would have to believe there was a conspiracy to convict him, involving the trial judge, and effectively shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

During the course of his summation, the prosecutor, among other things, repeatedly vouched for the credibility of the People’s witnesses (“He’s telling the truth”).  Such comments clearly are impermissible … .  We reach a similar conclusion regarding the prosecutor’s statement that if the jury was inclined to believe defendant, he had “a bridge in Brooklyn [to] sell” as well … .  These errors were compounded by the prosecutor’s completely speculative comment that “the only reason that [defendant] wasn’t involved in the other robbery that [Young] and [Ervin] committed” not long after the attack upon the victim “was because he couldn’t be there with them” – suggesting that had defendant not been in custody at the time that the subsequent robbery was committed, he would have participated in that crime as well.  Although the prosecutor’s comment in this regard undeniably was improper …, it paled in comparison to his statement that, in order to believe defendant’s version of events, the jury had to accept that there was a far-reaching conspiracy to convict defendant — one that included the trial judge.  Specifically, the prosecutor stated, “[H]ere’s what you’ll have to find to find that the defendant is not guilty.  This is what you have to believe.  You have to believe there was a conspiracy against [defendant,] that every single one of the witnesses that came in here went over there, put their hand on the Bible, swore to tell the truth, and then lied and made up a story, and that the detectives from the Albany Police Department . . . got together and risked their entire careers and got together with . . . Ervin and . . . Young to frame [defendant].  Then they got me involved to continue prosecuting the case, and then they got Judge Herrick and Judge Breslin to go along with these cooperation agreements and allowed them to come in here and lie.”

The problem with the foregoing statement is three-fold. First, the comment made by the prosecutor relative to what the jury would need to believe in order to find that defendant was not guilty arguably shifted the burden of proof from the People to defendant.  Additionally, the prosecutor’s reference to a conspiracy in no way constitutes fair comment upon the evidence adduced.  Although defendant indeed testified that Young and Ervin were not being truthful, he never suggested that the People’s witnesses, among others, were engaged in a conspiracy to wrongfully convict him, and there is nothing in the record to support such a claim.  Finally, there is no question that one of the jury’s key roles in a criminal trial is to assess the credibility of the witnesses who testify on behalf of the People and, in those instances where the defendant takes the stand or otherwise presents witnesses in support of his or her defense, to weigh the credibility of the People’s witnesses vis-a-vis the defendant’s witnesses.  Such a “credibility contest” is entirely permissible, and there is nothing inherently prejudicial about that evaluative process.  Here, however, the prosecutor’s commentary set up a far different credibility contest by suggesting to the jury that it could believe defendant only if it also believed that the trial judge, among others, had permitted the People’s witnesses to lie to the jury and/or otherwise engaged in some form of misconduct.  Simply put, the prosecutor’s conduct in pitting defendant against the very judge who had presided over the course of the trial was inexcusable and, despite defense counsel’s prompt objection and County Court’s appropriate curative instruction, the prejudicial impact of that conduct cannot be ignored. People v Forbes, 104771, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

 

 

/

Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46

The Second Department determined the failure to inform defendant of his right to be heard in a resentencing proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.46 required a remittance:

The statutory procedures governing the determination of a motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 provide, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see CPL 440.46[3]…). The defendant’s presence is not required for the court’s threshold determination of the purely legal issue of whether the defendant meets the statutory eligibility requirements for relief pursuant to CPL 440.46 …, but the defendant is entitled to appear before the court and to be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the merits of the resentencing motion … .

Here, the defendant was not brought before the Supreme Court prior to the court’s determination that, although he met the statutory eligibility requirements, substantial justice dictated that his motion for resentencing should be denied. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant was ever advised of his statutory right to be brought before the court, or that he knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily chose to relinquish that right … .The Supreme Court therefore failed to comply with the statutory mandate… .  People v Duke, 2013 NY Slip Op 07983, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

/ , ,

Double Hearsay in Presentence Report Did Not Render the Information Unreliable Re: a SORA Sex Offender Proceeding

The Second Department determined that the presence of double hearsay in a presentence report did not render the information unreliable such that it could not be considered in a SORA proceeding to determine the level of a sex offender:

“In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” … . Here, as the People correctly point out, the presentence report prepared by the Department of Probation, the felony complaint sworn to and signed by the arresting officer, and the arrest report constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]) and provided clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument during the commission of the rape … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that certain statements contained in these documents constituted “double hearsay” did not necessarily render them unreliable for purposes of a SORA hearing … . Moreover, even though certain proof may not have been admissible at the criminal trial, the Legislature did not limit the types of materials admissible in a SORA proceeding to what would be admissible at a civil or criminal trial… . People v Dash, 2013 NY Slip Op 07948, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

/ , ,

Condominium Owners Stated a Cause of Action Based Upon Third-Party-Beneficiary Status Re: a Contract Between the Village and an Engineer Hired to Inspect the Condominiums/The Contract Cause of Action Precluded the Professional Malpractice Cause of Action

The Second Department determined that a cause of action based upon the theory that condominium owners were third-party beneficiaries of a contract between a village and an engineer hired to inspect the condominiums should not have been dismissed.  It was alleged that the engineer approved the buildings (leading to the issuance of certificates of occupancy by the village) despite defects, including the absence of firewalls. Because a contract-based theory had been properly alleged, the related professional malpractice cause of action, sounding in negligence, should have been dismissed:

In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement . . . Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” … . Here, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from the Village Attorney attesting that the Village engaged the defendant to perform the subject inspections for the benefit of the purchasers of the subject condominiums … . Moreover, “the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution” … .

The plaintiffs asserted in the complaint that the defendant “negligently performed inspection services relative to the homes in [Encore I] and [Encore II],” in that, inter alia, the defendant “fail[ed] to detect the existence of defects in the homes and appurtenant common areas.” “[M]erely alleging that a party breached a contract because it failed to act with due care will not transform a strict breach of contract claim into a negligence claim” … . This is because “[o]bligations that flow exclusively from a contract must be enforced as contractual duties under a theory of contract law” … . “[A] court enforcing a contractual obligation will ordinarily impose a contractual duty only on the promisor in favor of the promisee and any intended third-party beneficiaries” … . “Thus where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie'” .. . Taking into account the applicable factors, including “the nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” … , it is clear that the plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries, are seeking enforcement of the defendant’s promise to properly inspect the construction of the subject homes. Thus, the only claim the plaintiffs have alleged against the defendant is one sounding in contract, and they have failed to state a cause of action sounding in tort. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Assn Inc v Cashin Assoc PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07932, Second Dept 11-27-13

 

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