In affirming the motion court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant prime contractor and defendant subcontractors, the Second Department clearly described the relevant proof requirements for Labor Law 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) and common-law negligence causes of action. Giovanniello v E W Howell, Co., LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 01805, 2011-11465, Ind No 26676/09, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
The Second Department determined the conviction for “criminal sexual act in the first degree” was against the weight of the evidence because the relevant testimony, although credible, did not prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant correctly contends that his conviction of criminal sexual act in the first degree is against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] …, we essentially sit as the “thirteenth juror” and “decide[ ] which facts were proven at trial” … . Here, we take no issue with the credibility of the People’s witnesses, or the jury’s decision to credit the complainant’s version of events over that of the defendant. However, weight of the evidence review is not limited to issues of credibility … . Rather, “in conducting its weight of the evidence review, a court must consider the elements of the crime, for even if the prosecution’s witnesses were credible their testimony must prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt” … . People v Ross, 2013 NY Slip Op 01860, 2009-00582, Ind No 11304/07, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
In reversing the conviction, the Second Department determined that the acquittal on a rape count rendered the conviction on a related “endangering the welfare of a child” count “against the weight of the evidence.” The Second Department also ruled that questions posed by defense counsel did not “open the door” to questioning by the prosecutor about prior “bad acts” which the trial court had ruled off limits in a Sandoval hearing. The Second Department further ruled that an exception to the “rape shield law” was applicable and evidence the complainant had sex with defendant’s brother should have been admitted because it was relevant to a defense-theory alleging the brother had committed acts with which the defendant was charged. In ordering a new trial on one of the counts, the Second Department found that “the cumulative effect of certain trial errors deprived defendant of a fair trial…”. In discussing the Sandoval error, the Second Department wrote:
The purpose of a Sandoval hearing is to provide the defendant with “definitive advance knowledge of the scope of cross-examination as to prior conduct to which he will be subjected,” so that the defendant can decide whether to take the witness stand … . In the interest of fairness, a trial court’s authority to change its Sandoval ruling is limited once the defendant has decided to testify in good faith reliance on that ruling … . “When a defendant testifies to facts that are in conflict with the precluded evidence, he opens the door on the issue in question, and he is properly subject to impeachment by the prosecution’s use of the otherwise precluded evidence” … .
With respect to the rape shield law, the Second Department wrote:
A woman’s character or reputation for chastity is irrelevant to a charge that she was sexually abused … . Thus, the Rape Shield Law, codified in CPL 60.42, provides that “[e]vidence of a victim’s sexual conduct shall not be admissible in a prosecution for an offense or an attempt to commit an offense defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law [i.e., sex offenses].” CPL 60.42 also provides five statutory exceptions. The first four exceptions allow the admission into evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct in narrowly defined factual circumstances, which are inapplicable here … . The fifth exception, however, “vest[s] discretion in the trial court” … . Pursuant to CPL 60.42(5), evidence of a victim’s prior sexual conduct may be introduced upon a determination by the court that such evidence is “relevant and admissible in the interests of justice” (CPL 60.42[5]…). The Court of Appeals has recognized that, “in the interests of justice,” evidence of a complainant’s sexual conduct may be admissible if it is relevant to a defense … . In contrast, such evidence must be precluded if it does not tend to establish a defense to the crime, and will only harass the victim and possibly confuse the jurors … . People v Fisher, 2013 NY Slip Op 01847, 2011-06453, Ind No 3421/09, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
In reversing the conviction, the Second Department determined two juror challenges for cause should have been granted because the jurors indicated they would tend to give added weight to the testimony of police officers and the court did not seek unequivocal assurances the jurors could set aside their bias. Defendant’s co-defendant’s judgment of conviction was reversed for the same reasons.
[The following quotation is from the decision reversing the co-defendant’s, Bernard Brothers’, judgment of conviction:
…[T]he County Court erred in denying the defendant’s challenges for cause with respect to two prospective jurors. One of the prospective jurors was a volunteer for the Police Athletic League who knew many police officers, including those assigned to the precinct in which the crime occurred. While he initially stated, “I think I could keep an open mind,” and he did not “think” that the fact that police officers from the precinct would testify at the trial would affect his ability to sit fairly on the case, he subsequently agreed that he “might” give police testimony a “leg up,” and accord such testimony “a little built in credibility.” Another prospective juror indicated that he would be inclined to accept the testimony of police officers as truthful unless there was a “reason that’s brought up that would make me think otherwise,” that he would have to have “a sense of inconsistency” with respect to the testimony of police officers, and that “unless there is a reason why they would lie or not tell the truth,” he would accept the testimony of police officers. It is undisputed that, after the County Court denied the challenges for cause to these two prospective jurors, the defendant exercised peremptory challenges and subsequently exhausted all of his peremptory challenges.
The two prospective jurors had “a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [them] from rendering an impartial verdict” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]), and they did not provide to the County Court “an unequivocal assurance” that they could “set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Accordingly, the County Court should have granted the challenges for cause with respect to these two prospective jurors, and the matter must be remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial. People v Brothers, 95 AD3d 1227]
People v Buggsward, 2013 NY Slip Op 01843, Second Dept 3-20-13
In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant hospital, the Second Department explained the flaws in the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit, finding the expert did not lay a foundation for an opinion outside the expert’s area of specialization and made “speculative” and “conclusory” assertions:
In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert did not raise a triable issue of fact. When, as here, “a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ expert failed to lay the requisite foundation. Moreover, even assuming the requisite foundation had been laid, the expert’s assertions that a diagnosis of the fracture at the hospital would have led to adequate immobilization, without specifying what adequate immobilization would have entailed, and may have resulted in “normal healing,” are conclusory and speculative, and thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation … . Shashi v Nassau Communities Hosp., 2013 NY Sip Op 01818, 2011-04552, Index No 15636/08, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
he Second Department determined the hospital’s (Winthrop-University Hospital’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging it was vicariously liable for the actions of a non-employee physician (Raio) should have been granted. The hospital demonstrated that the “emergency room exception” to vicarious liability for the negligence of a non-employee physician did not apply:
“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . “However, an exception to the general rule exists when a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … .
Here, Winthrop-University Hospital made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of Raio by submitting evidence that Raio was not an employee of Winthrop-University Hospital, but rather, an attending physician at the hospital …. Furthermore, Winthrop-University Hospital made a prima facie showing that the emergency room exception was inapplicable, by demonstrating that the decedent was referred to Raio’s care by his own internist … . Giambona v Hines, et al, 2013, NY Slip Op 01803, 2011-05943, Ind No 7819/07, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
In an action for breach of contract, waste, injury to real property, trespass, conversion and private nuisance, based upon clearing land of trees pursuant to an unrecorded easement, the Second Department wrote:
Pursuant to RPAPL 861(1), a property owner may maintain an action for damages against any person who, without the consent of the owner, removes or causes to be removed trees on the owner’s property … . “To recover damages based on the tort of private nuisance, a plaintiff must establish an interference with his or her right to use and enjoy land, substantial in nature, intentional or negligent in origin, unreasonable in character, and caused by the defendant’s conduct”… . “In order to establish a cause of action to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question . . . to the exclusion of the plaintiff’s rights” … . * * *
“[A]n unrecorded conveyance of an interest in real property is deemed void as against a subsequent good faith purchaser for value who acquires his interest without actual or constructive notice of the prior conveyance” … . However, “ [w]here a purchaser has knowledge of any fact, sufficient to put him on inquiry as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that he is about to purchase, he is presumed either to have made the inquiry, and ascertained the extent of such prior right, or to have been guilty of a degree of negligence equally fatal to his claim, to be considered as a bona fide purchaser’” …. “This presumption, however, is a mere inference of fact, and may be repelled by proof that the purchaser failed to discover the prior right, notwithstanding the exercise of proper diligence on his part” … . Schulz v Dattero, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 01815, 2011-05813, 2012-02942, Index No 876/06, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
In reversing a jury verdict finding that a will had been procured by fraud, i.e., a misrepresentation made to the decedent by one daughter, Zucker, against the other daughter, Ranaldo, resulting in the disinheritance of Ranaldo, the Second Department wrote:
…[T]here was no evidence presented at trial to demonstrate that Zucker conveyed the alleged misrepresentation to the decedent with the intention of inducing the decedent to alter her estate plan …, or that the alleged misrepresentation in fact induced the decedent to change her testamentary plan. There was no evidence presented to show that the decedent considered or discussed disinheriting Ranaldo when she met with her attorney two weeks after the alleged misrepresentation. The decedent’s attorney, who drafted the will, testified that the first time the decedent mentioned disinheriting Ranaldo was at a subsequent meeting, approximately eight months after the alleged misrepresentation. In the absence of any evidence to establish that Zucker conveyed the alleged misrepresentation to the decedent with the intention of inducing the decedent to alter her estate plan, and that the alleged misrepresentation in fact induced the decedent to change her testamentary plan, no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury that the will and the first amendment to the Trust were the product of fraud … . Accordingly, the jury’s verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence … . Matter of Ranaldo, 2013 NY Slip Op 01834, 2011-03624, 2011-03625, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
In finding the insurer’s (Country-Wide’s) disclaimer of coverage invalid, the Second Department wrote:
[County-Wide’s] written disclaimer of coverage was untimely and invalid as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 3420[d][2]). It is undisputed that [plaintiff] Jose R. Ramirez gave notice of the accident and claim to Country-Wide in a letter dated June 14, 2011, and that Country-Wide did not issue its disclaimer until August 15, 2011. While an insurer’s time to give written notice of disclaimer “is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage” …, the record demonstrates that the facts supporting the disclaimer in this case were either apparent from the claim documents submitted by Ramirez or were readily ascertainable upon the performance of a cursory investigation by Country-Wide … . Therefore, even if some investigation was warranted in this matter, the burden was on Country-Wide to demonstrate that the two-month delay in disclaiming was reasonably related to its performance of a prompt, diligent, thorough, and necessary investigation … . Since Country-Wide merely made a conclusory statement that the delay was occasioned by its investigation, and provided no details with regard to the specific efforts undertaken in conducting that investigation, it failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the delay was excusable, and the disclaimer was untimely as a matter of law … . Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Ramirez, 2013 NY Slip Op 01828, 2012-02056, Index No 12759/11, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
The Second Department, in reversing the dismissal of causes of action in a complaint, explained the criteria for dismissal based on documentary evidence:
A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be appropriately granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, to the extent that the sponsor’s submissions constituted “documentary evidence” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) …, they failed to utterly refute the cooperative’s allegations … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the sponsor’s motion which were to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). North Shore Towers Apts. Inc. v Three Towers Assoc., 2013 NY Slip Op 01812, 2012-00848, Index No 11834/10, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy