You are here: / THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the jury was properly instructed on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in this medical malpractice case. Here plaintiffs presented evidence nerve damage would not have occurred absent negligence. The plaintiff’s verdict was upheld:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to charge the jury with respect to res ipsa loquitur. “Under appropriate circumstances, the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be invoked to allow the factfinder to infer negligence from the mere happening of an event” … . “‘Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it'” … . Res ipsa loquitur “‘derives from the understanding that some events ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence'” … . “‘In addition to this first prerequisite, plaintiff must establish, second, that the injury was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant and, third, that no act or negligence on the plaintiff’s part contributed to the happening of the event. Once plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof on these three elements, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine permits the jury to infer negligence from the mere fact of the occurrence'” … . “Moreover, expert testimony may be properly used to help the jury ‘bridge the gap’ between its own common knowledge, which does not encompass the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to reach a conclusion that the occurrence would not normally take place in the absence of negligence, and the common knowledge of physicians, which does” … .

Here, the plaintiffs presented expert testimony that, in a first time fundoplication procedure like the plaintiff’s, injury to the vagus nerves should not occur if the surgeon adheres to the accepted standard of care and follows the proper surgical sequence. While the defendants presented evidence that gastroparesis can be idiopathic, “a plaintiff need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury to rely on res ipsa loquitur” … . Smith v Sommer, 2020 NY Slip Op 07235, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/ ,

STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE NOT MET; CONVICTION REDUCED TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the statutory criteria for criminal contempt first degree were not met and reduced the conviction to criminal contempt second degree:

As the People concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal contempt in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 215.51(c). An essential element of that crime is that the defendant has violated an order of protection issued pursuant to “sections two hundred forty and two hundred fifty-two of the domestic relations law, articles four, five, six and eight of the family court act and section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which requires the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” … . Here, the defendant was accused of violating an order of protection issued pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 530.13. Criminal Procedure Law § 530.13, which provides protection to victims of crimes other than family offenses, is not one of the authorities enumerated in Penal Law § 215.51(c). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree was legally insufficient because the People could not prove an essential element of the offense … . However, because the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction of the lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the second degree (see Penal Law § 215.50[3]), the defendant’s conviction is reduced accordingly … . People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 07229, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/ ,

THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT STEMMED FROM HIS STRIKING AND SERIOUSLY INJURING AN EIGHT-POUND DOG; THERE WAS NO NEED TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; INDICTMENT REINSTATED OVER A DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court on the People’s appeal, over an extensive dissent, determined the grand jury proceedings were not defective due to the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the grand jury on the justification defense. The charges against the defendant stemmed from his striking and severely injuring a dog. The Second Department held a reasonable view of the evidence did not warrant the justification instruction:

“‘[A] prosecutor should instruct the Grand Jury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . “The failure to charge justification constitutes reversible error only when the defense is ‘supported by a reasonable view of the evidence—not by any view of the evidence, however artificial or irrational'” … . …

There is no reasonable view of the evidence that forcefully striking and injuring the approximate eight-pound terrier poodle in the manner undertaken by the defendant, who was approximately 6 feet tall and weighed 200 pounds, was necessary as an emergency measure to avoid, at most, a bite by this small animal through denim pants. People v Jimenez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07223, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED HOURS AWAY FROM HIS BROOKLYN ATTORNEY AND ATTEMPTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY BEFORE ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was housed far away from his Brooklyn attorney and the attempts to have him moved to New York City were ignored by the Department of Corrections. The Second Department held defendant had been deprived of his right to counsel:

Under the circumstances here, and particularly in view of the defendant’s substantiated and uncontradicted testimony that he was deprived of his constitutional right to consult with his attorney in advance of trial, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application pursuant to CPL 220.60(3) to withdraw his plea of guilty. Under the circumstances … we conclude that the interests of justice would have been better served had the defendant been permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty. * * *

This Court has recognized that “[s]imple justice . . . mandates that a plea must be knowingly and intelligently given and, if it be to any degree induced by fear or coercion, it will not be permitted to stand” … . People v Hollmond, 2020 NY Slip Op 07222, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/ , ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION’S JOINT REQUEST TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL EVALUATED; ONCE A DEFENDANT IS DEEMED COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THE DECISION WHETHER TO PRESENT AN INSANITY DEFENSE IS THE DEFENDANT’S, NOT THE COURT’S, TO MAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the convictions, determined: (1) the trial judge should not have rejected the request by both defense counsel and the prosecutor to have the defendant’s mental health and fitness for trial evaluated; and (2) once a defendant is found competent to stand trial the decision whether to present an insanity defense is the defendant’s alone. Here defense counsel was ordered by the judge to present an insanity defense, over defendant’s objection:

… [W]hen confronted with evidence that the defendant was not taking his required medication and was not able to communicate rationally with his attorney, the Supreme Court should have granted the joint applications of the People and the defense to have the defendant examined pursuant to CPL 730.30(1) to determine his fitness to proceed … . …

… [A] defendant found competent to stand trial has the ultimate authority, even over counsel’s objection, to reject the use of a psychiatric defense … . Thus, once the Supreme Court determined the defendant to be competent to stand trial, it should not have interfered with that authority by “order[ing]” defense counsel, over the defendant’s objection, to present an insanity defense. People v Bellucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 07215, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY OR THE FAILURE TO JOIN OR SUBSTITUTE A PARTY WAS NOT WARRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default should have been granted. Although defendant did not submit an answer, he did move to dismiss the complaint, which extended his time to answer, and thereafter participated in the litigation. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground a necessary party was not included in the suit, and on the ground a party should have been substituted or joined:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate his default in answering the complaint. “CPLR 320(a) provides that a defendant may appear in an action in one of three ways: (1) by serving an answer, (2) by serving a notice of appearance, or (3) making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer” … . Here, the defendant appeared in the action in May 2008, when he, among others, moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, which extended his time to serve an answer (see CPLR 320[a]; 3211[f]). Although the defendant did not serve an answer to the complaint following the denial of his motion, the record demonstrates that the defendant actively participated in the litigation during the ensuing years and that the plaintiffs never moved for leave to enter a default judgment against him. …

“CPLR 1001(a) provides that ‘[p]ersons . . . who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action’ are necessary parties whose joinder is required” … . “‘When a person who should be joined under [CPLR 1001(a)] has not been made a party and is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him summoned'”…. . However, “[u]pon any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original parties unless the court directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted or joined in the action” (CPLR 1018). “The determination to substitute or join a party pursuant to CPLR 1018 is within the discretion of the trial court” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the plaintiffs to continue this action against the original defendants, despite any alleged changes to the composition of the purported board of trustees … over the course of this 16-year litigation, in order to avoid any further unnecessary delay … . Kelley v Garuda, 2020 NY Slip Op 07180, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s foreclosure action, sua sponte, as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Supreme Court, after plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed the plaintiff to “submit judgment.” When plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment for signature, Supreme Court dismissed the action because the proposed judgment was not submitted within 60 days. The 60-day time limit only applies when a party is directed to submit the judgment “on notice:”

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48, an order or judgment which is directed to be settled or submitted on notice must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order or judgment be settled or submitted. A party who fails to submit the order or judgment within the 60-day time period will be deemed to have abandoned the action or motion, absent good cause shown … . In this case, when the Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, it did not direct that the proposed judgment had to be settled or submitted on notice. 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where, as here, the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice … . James B. Nutter & Co. v McLaughlin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07178, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/ , , ,

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; AN INDICTMENT RAISES ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHICH CAN BE REBUTTED; A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED ONLY TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS AN INVESTIGATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s malicious prosecution cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was arrested and indicted for sex trafficking, held in jail for 10 months, and then the charges were dropped. The court noted that the indictment raised only a presumption of probable cause which can be rebutted. The plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the prosecution was motivated by malice. A prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting as an investigator:

“The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” … . Although a grand jury indictment raises a presumption of probable cause, this presumption may be rebutted … . “[E]ven if the jury at a trial could, or likely would, decline to draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff on issues of probable cause and malice, the court on a summary judgment motion must indulge all available inferences of the absence of probable cause and the existence of malice” … . …

“[A] prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of his or her official duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the People’s case, but a prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting in an investigatory capacity” … . Crooks v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 07161, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

/ ,

THE PROPERTY OWNER SUED THE VILLAGE ALLEGING THE VILLAGE BREACHED A CONTRACT IN FAILING TO RE-ZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT; A MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER A CONTRACT WHICH CONTROLS ITS LEGISLATIVE POWERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cause of action by plaintiff property owner alleging the defendant village breached a contract to rezone the property to allow development should have been dismissed. A municipality does not have the authority to make contracts which control legislative powers and duties:

Even were we to find that the stipulations contained a provision that required the Village Board to enact zoning, such a provision is unenforceable, as obligating the Village Board to enact certain zoning requiring a legislative act cannot be agreed to by stipulation. “While a municipality possesses the inherent right to compromise a claim against it, it may not, under the guise of a compromise, impair a public duty owed by it or give validity to a void claim. Municipal corporations have no power to make contracts which will embarrass or control them in the performance of their legislative powers and duties” … . Moreover, “[t]he term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so. Elected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors to exercise those powers” … . BT Holdings, LLC v Village of Chester, 2020 NY Slip Op 07157, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

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