You are here: / SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A...

Search Results

/ ,

SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION OF DIMENSIONS ALONE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk trip and fall case. There was a question of fact, raised by the plaintiff's expert, whether the defect was trivial as a matter of law:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit from an expert engineer who … found that the sidewalk flags had a vertical height differential of over one half inch. … [P]laintiff's expert opined that this differential and the dimension of the opening at the expansion joint created a “trap-like hazardous condition and [was] a known cause of trip and fall accidents.” The expert further opined that the condition of the sidewalk had been in a noticeable state of disrepair for at least one year prior to plaintiff's fall, and therefore, defendants should have been aware of the unsafe condition.

The motion court properly rejected defendants' argument that the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding issues of fact. The Court of Appeals has held “that there is no “minimal dimension test” or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable' . . . and therefore [] granting summary judgment to a defendant based exclusively on the dimensions[s] of the . . . defect is unacceptable'”… . Thus, a finding of triviality, as a matter of law, must “be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone” … . For this reason, the Court of Appeals has noted that “whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability . . . is generally a question of fact for the jury” … .

Here, the crux of defendants' triviality argument is that the defect was physically insignificant. However, as already noted, case law prohibits us from basing a finding of triviality on size alone. Indeed, before the burden can shift to the plaintiff, defendants “must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … .  Suarez v Emerald 115 Mosholu LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06059, First Dept 9-13-18

NEGLIGENCE (SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION OF DIMENSIONS ALONE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION OF DIMENSIONS ALONE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION OF DIMENSIONS ALONE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION OF DIMENSIONS ALONE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

/

SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, sent the case back for resentencing because it appeared the sentencing judge was under the misimpression the minimum period of post release supervision (PRS) was five years, when the minimum was two and a half years:

At the time of defendant's plea, the court, counsel, and the prosecution believed defendant was a predicate felony offender. The plea offer contained the mandatory five-year term of PRS for a second felony offender convicted of a first violent felony offense (see Penal Law §§ 70.00[6], 70.45[2][f]). At sentencing, however, when defense counsel stated that defendant was not, in fact, a predicate felon, the sentencing court asked whether defendant's status as a first felony offender “change[d] our circumstances.” Defense counsel responded, “I think the minimum is still three and a half.” The court later asked, “Is there any reason that I should not impose the sentence of three-and- one-half years plus five years of post-release supervision?” Defense counsel replied, “Even if it was not quote unquote agreed upon, that would have been the best Your Honor could have given.” As indicated, the defense counsel's statement was correct as to the prison term, but not as to the period of PRS. People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 06055, First Dept 9-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT))/POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS)  (SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS FIVE YEARS WHEN IT ACTUALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS, MATTER SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over two concurring opinions, determined that it could not review whether the police received voluntary consent to enter an apartment because it is a mixed question of law and fact and there is support in the record for the motion court's ruling. The concurring opinions dealt with an issue which was not raised below or on appeal—whether the police went to the apartment with the intent to make a warrantless arrest:

The determination as to whether police received voluntary consent to enter the apartment is a mixed question of law and fact … . “Although the voluntariness of the consent is open to dispute, our power to review affirmed findings of fact is limited. Since the finding of the trial court is supported by the record, we are precluded from upsetting it”… . As our concurring colleagues acknowledge, defendant did not contend below and does not contend on this appeal that his arrest was unlawful because the police went to his home with the intent of making a warrantless arrest. People v Xochimitl, 2018 NY Slip Op 06053, CtApp 9-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER THE POLICE RECEIVED VOLUNTARY CONSENT TO ENTER AN APARTMENT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT REVIEW, TWO CONCURRING OPINIONS DEALT WITH AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED, WHETHER THE POLICE WENT TO THE APARTMENT INTENDING TO MAKE A WARRANTLESS ARREST (CT APP))

/ , ,

APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the Appellate Division applied the correct analysis to its weight of the evidence review, despite the Appellate Division's citing of several decisions which should no longer be followed:

The Appellate Division stated the correct standard of review when it concluded that, “viewing the evidence presented at trial in a neutral light . . . , and weighing the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony and evidence, as well as the relative strength of the conflicting inferences to be drawn therefrom, and according deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor, the jury was justified in finding that the People sustained their burden of disproving defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt” (157 AD3d 107, 116, 118 [1st Dept 2017]; see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). To the extent the Appellate Division cited to certain prior decisions (see 157 AD3d at 109, citing People v Castillo, 223 AD2d 481, 481 [1st Dept 1996]; People v Bartley, 219 AD2d 566, 567 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 898 [1st Dept 1995]; People v Corporan, 169 AD2d 643, 643 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 959 [1st Dept 1991]) containing language that is inconsistent with our more recent guidance regarding weight of the evidence (see People v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107, 116-117 [2011]), those decisions should not be followed.

… .[T]he Appellate Division applied the correct standard from Romero and Bleakley, which involves a “two-step approach” wherein the court must (1) “determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable[;]” and (2) “weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” … . People v Sanchez, 2018 NY Slip Op 06052, CtApp 9-13-18

CRIMINAL LAW (APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE CORRECT CRITERIA IN ITS WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, DESPITE CITING SEVERAL DECISIONS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP))

/ ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTION THAT THE DECEDENT LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE INQUIRY IS CONFINED TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE WILL IS SIGNED, TWO DISSENTERS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that Surrogate's Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the objection that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity.

… [E]vidence of decedent's diagnosis of dementia and declining cognitive abilities “does not, without more, create a question of fact on the issue of testamentary capacity, as the appropriate inquiry is whether the decedent was lucid and rational at the time the will was signed” … .

From the dissent:

… “[S]ummary judgment is rare in a contested probate proceeding and where, as here, there is conflicting evidence or the possibility of drawing conflicting inferences from undisputed evidence, summary judgment is inappropriate” … . Although a diagnosis of dementia, standing alone, is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding mental capacity … , where, as here, there is proof of a progressively worsening mental condition, evidence of specific facts that occur close in time to execution is probative of testamentary capacity at the relevant time and is sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact … . Matter of Giaquinto, 2018 NY Slip Op 06065, Third Dept 9-12-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTION THAT THE DECEDENT LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE INQUIRY IS CONFINED TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE WILL IS SIGNED, TWO DISSENTERS (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTION THAT THE DECEDENT LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE INQUIRY IS CONFINED TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE WILL IS SIGNED, TWO DISSENTERS (THIRD DEPT))/TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY  (SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTION THAT THE DECEDENT LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE INQUIRY IS CONFINED TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE WILL IS SIGNED, TWO DISSENTERS (THIRD DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTION THAT THE DECEDENT LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE INQUIRY IS CONFINED TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE WILL IS SIGNED, TWO DISSENTERS (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the manufacturer of a transformer base was entitled to summary judgment in this failure to warn action. Plaintiffs decedent fell asleep at the wheel, “drove up an embankment, struck a tree, rolled back down the embankment, and ran over a transformer base, which ruptured the gas tank of his vehicle, causing a fire. The decedent was unable to extricate himself and his two infant children from the vehicle, and they all died. “

The plaintiff alleged that when a pole is attached to the transformer base, the transformer base is designed so that it will break away from its concrete base when it is struck by a vehicle in order to minimize damage to the vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that when the pole was removed from the subject transformer base prior to the accident, the transformer base lost this “breakaway” feature. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer of the transformer base and all other entities in the supply chain had a duty to warn the DOT that the transformer base would lose its breakaway capability if it was not attached to a pole. * * *

To recover on a strict products liability cause of action based on inadequate warnings, a plaintiff must prove causation, i.e., that if adequate warnings had been provided, the product would not have been misused… . In other words, “[f]or there to be recovery for damages stemming from a product defective because of the inadequacy or absence of warnings, the failure to warn must have been a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” … . “Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause”… . “However, the issue of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … . …

The transformer base at issue in this case was located beyond the clear zone, which is defined as “an area without fixed objects that is adjacent to a highway and intended to provide safe passage and a recovery area for vehicles that veer off the roadway” … . [Defendants] demonstrated that, as per DOT policy, light poles located beyond the clear zone were not required to have breakaway transformer bases and that the loss of the breakaway feature would not have affected the DOT's decision to remove the light pole from the subject transformer base prior to the accident. Accordingly, [defendants] established, prima facie, that the failure to warn of the loss of the breakaway feature was not a substantial cause of the events which produced the injuries alleged here … . Reece v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06048, Second Dept 9-12-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FAILURE TO WARN (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/WARN, FAILURE TO (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS  (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 ACTION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A FALLING OBJECT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant 101 Norfolk was an owner within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200. Plaintiff was injured by a falling object:

Contrary to the defendant 101 Norfolk's contention, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the defendant 101 Norfolk was not an “owner” for purposes of liability under the Labor Law. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant 101 Norfolk owned the property on which the plaintiff allegedly was injured and there was evidence that the plaintiff was injured in the course of a construction project encompassing both 103-105 Norfolk Street and the defendant 101 Norfolk's property, 101 Norfolk Street. Under the circumstances of this case, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant 101 Norfolk contracted to have the injury-causing work performed, or had a sufficient nexus to that work, so as to support liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 … . There are also triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant 101 Norfolk had a duty to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work … . Powell v Norfolk Hudson, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06047, Second Dept 9-12-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 ACTION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A FALLING OBJECT, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, HIS SENTENCE ON A SEX OFFENSE WAS INTERRUPTED WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD DECLARED HIM DELINQUENT, WHEN DEFENDANT RETURNED TO STATE CUSTODY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT MURDER CONVICTION, HIS SEX OFFENSE SENTENCE RESUMED MAKING HIM SUBJECT TO SORA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant's level three sex offender adjudication should not have been vacated on the ground that defendant had completed his sex offense sentence in 1980, well before SORA went into effect in 1996. The Second Department held that defendant's sentence had been interrupted in 1979 when the Parole Board declared him delinquent. Defendant was subsequently prosecuted for murder and when defendant returned to state custody after his murder conviction in 1982, his sex offense sentence resumed:

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his rape and attempted robbery sentences were “automatically interrupted when the Parole Board declared him delinquent” on June 4, 1979 … . The defendant was not entitled to credit against those interrupted sentences for his time spent in local custody while his murder case was pending, as none of the provisions providing for such credit in Penal Law former § 70.40(3)(c) apply in this case (see Penal Law former § 70.40[3][c]…). The interruption of the defendant's rape and attempted robbery sentences that began on June 4, 1979, continued until the defendant returned “to an institution under the jurisdiction of the state department of correction,” which in this case occurred when the defendant was returned to the custody of DOCCS on January 19, 1982 (Penal Law former § 70.40[3][a]…). Upon his return to the custody of DOCCS in 1982, the defendant both commenced serving his murder sentence and resumed serving his interrupted rape and attempted robbery sentences (see Penal Law § 70.30[1]; Penal Law former § 70.40[3][a]…). For the purposes of SORA, the defendant was subject to all of these sentences during his incarceration after January 19, 1982 …. Thus, the defendant was serving his rape, attempted robbery, and murder sentences on SORA's effective date in 1996, and he is subject to SORA … . People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 06045, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENSE REGISTRATION ACT, DEFENDANT'S LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, HIS SENTENCE ON A SEX OFFENSE WAS INTERRUPTED WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD DECLARED HIM DELINQUENT, WHEN DEFENDANT RETURNED TO STATE CUSTODY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT MURDER CONVICTION, HIS SEX OFFENSE SENTENCE RESUMED MAKING HIM SUBJECT TO SORA (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) ( DEFENDANT'S LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, HIS SENTENCE ON A SEX OFFENSE WAS INTERRUPTED WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD DECLARED HIM DELINQUENT, WHEN DEFENDANT RETURNED TO STATE CUSTODY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT MURDER CONVICTION, HIS SEX OFFENSE SENTENCE RESUMED MAKING HIM SUBJECT TO SORA (SECOND DEPT))

/

DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying a late peremptory challenge to a juror and ordered a new trial:

… [C]ounsel for codefendant Rodger Freeman stated, “There was one we missed, number eight.” The court responded, “We have eight.” In response, counsel for codefendant Rodger Freeman stated, “We don't want eight.” The court replied, “You already—you told me what the perempts are and who the selected jurors are,” and denied the request to challenge prospective juror eight. * * *

Under CPL 270.15, “the decision to entertain a belated peremptory challenge is left to the discretion of the trial court, in recognition that the voir dire process can often be time-consuming and requires practical limitations” … . Here, the delay in challenging prospective juror eight was de minimis. There was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by the defense's momentary oversight and the voir dire of the second subgroup of prospective jurors was still to be conducted. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improperly denied the request to challenge prospective juror eight … . Since a trial court's improper denial of a peremptory challenge mandates reversal, we reverse the judgment and order a new trial … . People v Viera, 2018 NY Slip Op 06043, Second Dept 9-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE (JURORS, DENIAL OF A LATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT)

/

EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the owners of property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff fell did not present sufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The defendant-owners (Millers) argued the defect was trivial:

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place, and circumstance of the injury” … .

The Millers failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law … . In support of their motion, the Millers submitted conflicting evidence as to the dimensions of the alleged defective condition, including the plaintiff's testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and measurements taken by the Millers' investigator. Further, “it is impossible to ascertain from the photographs submitted in support of the motion whether the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law” … . Coriat v Miller, 2018 NY Slip Op 05998, Second Dept 9-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

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