You are here: / ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED A SORA RISK FACTOR DID NOT APPLY,...

Search Results

/ ,

ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED A SORA RISK FACTOR DID NOT APPLY, BRINGING DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT FROM A LEVEL THREE TO A LEVEL TWO, THE APPELLATE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REMIT THE MATTER TO COUNTY COURT TO CONSIDER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHETHER AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS WARRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the appellate division appropriately remitted the matter to County Court after the appellate court reduced the risk assessment by 10 points because the People conceded the absence of forcible compulsion. Eliminating that 10 point assessment resulted in reducing defendant from a level three offender to a level two offender. The remittal was for the purpose of allowing County Court to consider an upward departure, which the court did not consider because defendant had been deemed a presumptive level three offender at the time of the SORA hearing:

Here, the People prevailed before the SORA court on their requested allocation of points under the RAI [risk assessment instrument] and risk level. When the Appellate Division reversed on the allocation of points and the risk level dropped accordingly, it remitted to allow the SORA court to consider a departure request for the first time. Defendant and our dissenting colleague object, contending that because this upward departure request was not made during the original SORA proceeding, the SORA court made no ruling “adverse” to the People, and the Appellate Division therefore could not “review” this “unpreserved” departure question and order remittal upon reversal. But this argument confuses the question of whether remittal was appropriate corrective action with a question of preservation … . This is not a case in which a party failed to present an issue to the SORA court and then asked the Appellate Division to nonetheless resolve that same question; the Appellate Division did not rule on the merits of the departure but remitted it for the SORA court to do so in the first instance … . * * *

Curbing the Appellate Division’s power to remit for consideration of departure requests when it disagrees with the hearing court’s point assessment and changes an offender’s presumptive risk level would undermine SORA’s objective and unduly constrain the Appellate Division’s authority to order appropriate remedial action.  People v Weber, 2023 NY Slip Op 03301, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here in this SORA risk level proceeding, the appellate division appropriately remitted the matter to County Court to determine whether an upward departure was warranted. The appellate division had found a risk factor did not apply, reducing defendant’s risk level from three to two. County Court had not considered an upward departure in the original SORA proceeding because defendant’s presumptive risk level was already level three.

 

/ ,

EVEN THOUGH THE SORA RISK LEVEL CAME OUT THE SAME (115 POINTS), THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRST REMOVED 15 POINTS WHICH WERE BASED ON AN INAPPLICABLE RISK FACTOR AND THEN ADDED 15 POINTS BASED ON A RISK FACTOR NOT INCLUDED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT; THAT CONSTITUTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WITHOUT NOTICE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, with a three-judge concurrence, reversing the appellate division, determined the judge in the SORA risk-level proceeding should not have departed from the presumptive risk level based on an issue of which the defendant was not given 10 days notice. The risk assessment included 15 points for refusing sex offender treatment but it was clear defendant did not refuse treatment. Rather, he was prohibited from receiving the treatment because of his prison disciplinary history. The judge agreed the 15 points for refusing treatment should be removed, but then added 15 points based on the defendant’s disciplinary record, a risk factor which was not included in the Board’s risk assessment:

Here, the proceeding failed to comport with due process because defendant was provided no notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard in response to the District Attorney’s request for an upward departure first interposed during the SORA hearing in response to the court’s invitation. The Board recommended the court classify defendant as a level three offender based on his risk factor score of 115 points and did not recommend an upward departure or that the court consider defendant’s disciplinary history for purposes aside from a factor 13 point allocation. Although the District Attorney agreed with the Board that defendant should be classified as a level three risk, the District Attorney reached that conclusion not on the total point assessment contained in the RAI but rather on an independent basis that defendant’s disciplinary history was sufficiently egregious to warrant an upward departure. Once the District Attorney announced its deviation from the reasons supporting the Board’s proposed risk level classification, defendant was entitled to a sufficient opportunity to consider and muster evidence in opposition to the request for an upward departure. The record shows that the court decided the issue without an adjournment, without allowing defendant to present rebuttal arguments or collect additional evidence, and without any input from defense counsel. The court erred by proceeding in this manner.  People v Worley, 2023 NY Slip Op 03300, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Even where the total number of SORA risk level points remains unchanged from that recommended by the Board, the judge cannot remove one inapplicable risk factor and then add a risk factor not recommended by the Board without affording defendant 10 days notice and an opportunity to be heard.

 

/ ,

THE LOBBY WAS MOPPED WITH A SOAP-LIKE SUBSTANCE AN HOUR BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL AND PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE NOTICED THE FLOOR WAS WET AND SMELLED OF CLEANING FLUID AFTER SHE FELL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant property owner created the dangerous condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The area had been mopped with a soap-like substance an hour before the fall and plaintiff testified she noticed the floor was wet and smelled of cleaning fluid after she fell:

… [D]efendant relied upon the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and of the defendant’s maintenance employee who was in charge of mopping the lobby. Their testimony demonstrated that the lobby area where the plaintiff fell had been mopped with a soap-like substance sometime during the hour preceding the plaintiff’s fall and that, after she fell, the plaintiff noticed that the floor was wet and smelled like a cleaning liquid. Given this evidence, the defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the condition that caused the plaintiff to fall … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, its submissions failed to establish that the wet or oily condition of the floor was readily observable by a reasonable use of the plaintiff’s senses prior to her fall … . Buestan v Tiff Real Prop., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03220, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: Evidence that the area of the slip and fall was mopped with soap an hour before plaintiff’s slip and fall and that plaintiff noticed the floor was wet and smelled of soap after her fall raised a question of fact whether the property owner created the dangerous condition which caused the fall.

 

/ ,

AFTER PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS SERVICED, A TIRE (WHEEL?) FELL OFF, CAUSING AN ACCIDENT; THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment based upon the res ipsa loquitur theory of liability should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ car was inspected by defendant car dealership and the tires (wheels?) were removed and reattached. When plaintiff Kathleen Becchetti drove the car from the dealership one of the tires (wheels?) detached causing an accident:

For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, a plaintiff must establish three conditions: “[f]irst, the event must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; second, it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and third, it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . Regarding the second element, exclusive control is not a rigid rule and has been applied in circumstances when “the accident occurred after the instrumentality left the defendant’s control, where it was shown that the defendant had exclusive control at the time of the alleged act of negligence” … . The plaintiff does not need to eliminate all other causes, but, rather, must show that their likelihood is reduced so that the defendants’ conduct is more probably the cause … . The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s control was sufficiently exclusive to fairly rule out some other agency causing the purported defect … . Once the plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof on these three elements, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits the factfinder to infer negligence … .

Here, the plaintiffs established, prima facie, that a tire detachment, such as the one at issue here, does not occur in the absence of negligence … . Furthermore, the plaintiffs established, prima facie, that the vehicle was in the defendants’ exclusive control at the time of the alleged act of negligence … and that the plaintiffs did not contribute to the event … . …

… [S]ince this is the type of “rare” and “exceptional” res ipsa loquitur case “in which no facts are left for determination” … , the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Bicchetti v Atlantic Toyota, 2023 NY Slip Op 03219, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: Here a wheel fell off plaintiffs’ car after the car was serviced, causing an accident. Although the car was not in the exclusive control of the dealership when the wheel fell off, the negligence occurred when the dealership had exclusive control. This was deemed a rare case warranting summary judgment.

 

/ ,

WHERE DEFENDANTS AVER SPECIFIC FACTS WHICH REBUT THE STATEMENTS IN THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants presented sufficient facts to rebut the presumption they were properly served with the summons and complaint, requiring a hearing:

“Ordinarily, the affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served” … Bare and unsubstantiated denials of receipt of the summons and complaint are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service … . “However, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit, and necessitates an evidentiary hearing” … . “If an issue regarding service turns upon a question of credibility, a hearing should be held to render a determination on this issue”… .

Here, the process servers’ affidavits of service constituted prima facie evidence of valid service upon the defendants at the subject New York and Florida properties … . However, since the defendants’ sworn denial of receipt of process at both properties contained specific facts to rebut the statements in the process servers’ affidavits, the presumption of proper service was rebutted and an evidentiary hearing was required … . Aikens v Kouchnerova, 2023 NY Slip Op 03218, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: A defendant’s mere denial of receipt of a summons and complaint is not enough to rebut the presumption of valid service. But where a defendant avers specific facts which rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit, an evidentiary hearing is required.

 

/ ,

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant of the details of postrelease supervision rendered the plea invalid:

… [A]t the plea proceeding, the County Court mentioned that the sentence would include postrelease supervision, but did not specify the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed, nor did the court indicate the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed. As the People concede, the court’s failure to so advise the defendant prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . People v Pryor, 2023 NY Slip Op 03241, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: A guilty plea is not knowing, voluntary and intelligent unless the defendant is informed of the specific period of postrelease supervision and the maximum potential period of postrelease supervision. It is not enough simply to mention that postrelease supervision will be imposed.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT PEDIATRIC PRACTICE SUBMITTED EXPERT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S ADOLESCENT SCOLIOSIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED UNTIL A YEAR AFTER PLAINTIFF LEFT DEFENDANT’S CARE; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant pediatric practice in this medical malpractice action was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged the failure to diagnose scoliosis. Defendant submitted evidence that adolescent scoliosis could not have been diagnosed until a year after plaintiff left defendant’s care. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address that issue:

… S.V. [defendant pediatric practice] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, an affirmation of a physician board certified in orthopedic surgery. The expert opined that the care and treatment rendered by S.V.’s employees did not deviate from accepted medical practice, and that the injured plaintiff’s adolescent idiopathic scoliosis condition could not have been diagnosed until he reached adolescence, which did not occur for at least one year after he left S.V.’s care, during which time the injured plaintiff tested negative for the condition … . In opposition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, including an affirmation of a physician, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ expert failed to address the specific assertion of S.V.’s expert that the injured plaintiff did not develop adolescent idiopathic scoliosis until after he left S.V.’s care, and was otherwise speculative, conclusory, and unsupported by the record … . Lagatta v Rivera, 2023 NY Slip Op 03227, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff’s expert did not address defendant’s expert’s prima facie proof on a dispositive issue. In that circumstance, defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

 

/ , ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANT, IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PROXIMATE CAUSE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF, IN OPPOSITION, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was diagnosed with a degenerative spine but died hours later of a heart attack:

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, the defendant has the initial burden of establishing either that there was no departure from accepted community standards of practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … . “Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact’ as to the elements on which the defendant met the prima facie burden” … . “‘Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions'” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affirmation of an expert who opined, based upon his review of, inter alia, the decedent’s medical records, among other things, that the decedent exhibited symptoms consistent with a myocardial infarction when he presented to the hospital emergency department, as well as a large scar from a prior cardiac surgery, and that the defendants departed from the accepted standard of medical care by failing to perform a cardiac workup on the decedent at that time … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert were not vague or conclusory … . Moreover, the plaintiff was not required to raise a triable issue of fact as to the element of proximate cause, as the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to that element … . Kielb v Bascara, 2023 NY Slip Op 03226, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: In opposition to a defense motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, plaintiff need not address issues on which defendant did not make out a prima facie case. Here defendant did not make out a prima facie case on the issue of proximate cause and plaintiff, therefore, did not need to address that issue in opposition.

Similar issues and result in Lopresti v Alzoobaee, 2023 NY Slip Op 03228, Second Dept 6-14-23 (failure to diagnose testicular cancer; inadequate attempt to address proximate cause by submitting an expert affidavit with reply papers).

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON BLACK ICE WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the black ice in the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell. Defendant did not submit evidence of when the area was last cleaned or inspected:

“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Accordingly, a property owner seeking summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case “has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition. The defendant provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the subject area prior to the plaintiff’s fall, and there are triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged ice condition had existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that the defendant could have discovered and corrected it … . Edwards v Genting N.Y., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03223, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: To demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition in a slip and fall case, a property owner must submit proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall.

 

/ ,

THE FLOOR IN THE BATHROOM WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD RECENTLY BEEN MOPPED; THE DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE DID NOT PROVE THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE WARNING; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant grocery store’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The bathroom floor where plaintiff fell had been mopped recently. There were questions of fact whether there was an adequate warning about the condition of the floor:

The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of the motion raised triable issues of fact as to whether Food Parade provided any warning about a potentially hazardous condition in the bathroom and whether any warning that was provided adequately gave notice that there was a hazardous condition inside the bathroom … . Darginsky v Food Parade, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03222, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor. Defendant did not demonstrate there was an adequate warning of the condition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

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