You are here: / AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE...

Search Results

/ , , ,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, WHICH WAS BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S MAKING U-TURNS, AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REARGUE THE MOTION AND PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U-TURNS WERE, IN FACT, ILLEGAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the judge in this DWI prosecution should not have granted the People’s motion to reargue the suppression motion. The court had initially granted defendant’s motion to suppress because the People failed to prove U-turns made by the defendant were illegal. When the suppression motion was reargued, the People presented evidence the U-turns were, in fact, illegal and the court denied suppression:

… [I]f the People have had a full and fair opportunity to oppose suppression, and the suppression court has issued a ruling on the merits, the People may not have an additional “opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position” … . Under the circumstances of this case, where the People were unprepared for the suppression hearing and sought to reargue the legal issue to remedy their lack of preparedness, the same principle should apply.

At a suppression hearing, the People bear the burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . Here, the court granted defendant’s motion for suppression because the People failed to demonstrate that defendant’s U-turns were illegal and therefore that the stop was lawful. Neither the Assistant District Attorney nor the arresting officer could identify any traffic law provision violated by defendant. Moreover, the People did not request a recess or adjournment to determine the statutory basis for the stop, nor did they request permission to furnish a post-hearing submission to identify any relevant provision of law. Instead, the People returned a month after the court granted suppression, offering a different legal theory that they had not raised at the original suppression hearing. On that new legal theory, the court changed course and denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Of course, “[b]efore sentence is imposed, trial courts in criminal cases have the general inherent authority to correct their own mistakes” … , which may include granting leave to reargue. Although the People may be permitted to reargue the legal or factual issues of the suppression proceedings, allowing the suppression court to grant the People’s motion to reargue in these circumstances would run afoul of our “full and fair opportunity” principle and the policies of finality and judicial efficiency underlying it. People v Lawson, 2024 NY Slip Op 06238, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Pont: As a general rule, the People should have only one chance to demonstrate the legality of a traffic stop in the context of a suppression hearing. Once a suppression motion is granted, the People should not be allowed to reopen the hearing to present evidence which could have been presented the first time around.

 

/

A PATROL OFFICER’S FALLING INTO A HOLE DUG FOR A SEWER LINE WHILE INVESTIGATING, AT NIGHT, A SUSPICIOUS LIGHT FROM A VACANT HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined petitioner, a former police officer, was not injured in an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits. Petitioner, at night, was investigating a suspicious light in a vacant house which was under construction. Petitioner was aware the house was under construction. He was injured when he fell into a hole which had been dug for a sewer line:

As our caselaw makes clear, an incident caused by “a risk inherent in the petitioner’s regular [job] duties” is not an accident for purposes of ADR benefits … . In determining whether an accident occurred, respondent appropriately considered whether, at the time of the incident, petitioner was “acting within the scope of [his] ‘ordinary employment duties, considered in view of [his] particular employment,’ ” and whether the incident was caused by “an inherent risk of [those] regular duties” … . On this record, respondent “reasonabl[y] and plausibl[y]” determined that petitioner’s risk of being injured by an unseen hazard while investigating a potential crime in the dark was inherent in his ordinary job duties as a patrol officer … . Matter of Compagnone v DiNapoli, 2024 NY Slip Op 06235, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Point: A patrol officer investigating, at night, a suspicious light from a vacant house under construction, could or should have anticipated injury from an unseen hazard at the construction site, here a hole dug for a sewer line. Falling into the hole was not a compensable “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.​

 

/

AN INCIDENT WHICH “COULD OR SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY BEEN ANTICIPATED” IS NOT AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, affirming the Appellate Division, determined petitioner, a former police officer, was not entitled to accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits for injuries suffered when a wheel on his desk chair caught in a rut and the chair began to tip over backwards. Petitioner, who was aware of the ruts in the floor, was able to stop the chair from tipping over by grabbing the desk, injuring his shoulder and neck:

An event which is “a risk inherent” in the work performed is not an “accident” for purposes of ADR benefits … . Further, an event that is not a risk inherent in one’s job must be a “sudden, unexpected” occurrence in order to amount to an “accident” … . We held in Matter of Rizzo v DiNapoli that a known danger cannot be the cause of a compensable accident, but we left open whether an event that could or should have reasonably been anticipated by the claimant can result in an accident for purposes of section 363 (see 39 NY3d 991, 992 [2022]). We answer that question today.

We hold that a precipitating event that could or should have reasonably been anticipated by a person in the claimant’s circumstances is not an “accident” for purposes of ADR benefits. It is well established that “an injury which occurs without an unexpected event . . . is not an accidental injury” for purposes of section 363 (Lichtenstein, 57 NY2d at 1012). The unexpected nature of the precipitating event is key to this definition. * * *

… [W]e conclude that substantial evidence supports the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner could or should have reasonably anticipated the near-fall from his desk chair. Matter of Bodenmiller v DiNapoli, 2024 NY Slip Op 06234, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Point: Here petitioner was aware of ruts in the floor in which the wheels on his desk chair could catch. Therefore injuries stemming from a wheel catching in a rut were not the result of a compensable “accident” under the Retirement and Social Security Law.

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A LADDER WHICH FELL BECAUSE IT WAS PLACED ON A SLIPPERY MAT; PLAINTFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. In addition, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was working at ground level. A coworker placed a ladder on a mat which was covered with cow manure and started climbing the ladder. The ladder slipped on the mat and fell, hitting plaintiff on the head:

​The failure to properly place and secure the ladder amounted to a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Moreover, the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries because the plaintiff was injured when the ladder “proved inadequate to shield [him] from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . …

… [T]he coworker’s improper placement of the ladder was not of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) as to sever the causal nexus between the defendant’s statutory violation and the plaintiff’s injuries … . …

“In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), the plaintiff must establish that the job was a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of his [or her] injury” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant work was not a hard hat job or that the plaintiff’s lack of head protection played no role in the injuries he sustained when he was struck in the head by the ladder … .

12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) provides that “[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm. Slippery surfaces and insecure objects such as bricks and boxes shall not be used as ladder footings.” Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the rubber mat covered with cow manure and hay was not a slippery surface for the purpose of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii). …

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or employer to provide employees with a safe place to work” … . … When a claim is based on an alleged dangerous condition of a work site, the defendant may be liable where he or she had actual or constructive notice of the condition or created the condition … . A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … . Here, the defendant’s conclusory statements in his affidavit that he did not recall having entered the barn on the day of the accident and that he was unaware of the plaintiff’s accident were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that he did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition … . Wright v Pennings, 2024 NY Slip Op 06233, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A coworker placed a ladder on a slippery mat and the ladder fell and struck plaintiff when the coworker started to climb it. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The coworker’s actions did not sever the causal connection between the statutory violation (an unsecured ladder) and plaintiff’s injuries.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF PREVAILED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; HOWEVER, ABSENT A CONTRACT PROVISION, OR A STATUTE OR COURT RULE ALLOWING THE AWARD, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been awarded attorney’s fees in this breach of contract action because the contract did not so provide:

“New York follows the general rule that attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute, or court rule” … . “It is not uncommon, however, for parties to a contract to include a promise by one party to hold the other harmless for a particular loss or damage and counsel fees are but another form of damage which may be indemnified in this way” … . “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … .

Here, the contract did not provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees that resulted from the instant litigation, and the plaintiff failed to establish that a statute or court rule would entitle her to an award of attorneys’ fees. Wolf v Vestra SPV3, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: The general rule in New York is, absent a contract provision or a statute or court rule allowing the award of attorney’s fees, the winner of a lawsuit cannot collect attorney’s fees from the loser.

 

/ ,

A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHICH DOES NOT STATE THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WOULD BE THE BASIS OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS INEFFECTIVE AND CAN BE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal should have be vacated because it did not indicate that plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would be the basis for a motion to dismiss:

“‘CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with'” … . Pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “‘unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … .

Here, the conditional dismissal order did not contain the requisite language advising that the failure to file a note of issue would be the basis for a motion to dismiss … . Under these circumstances, the action should have been restored to the active calendar without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the conditional dismissal order … . Wells Fargo Bank v Wasersztrom, 2024 NY Slip Op 06231, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A conditional order of dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR must include a statement that the failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would be the basis for a motion to dismiss the complaint. If that language is not in the conditional order, the order may be vacated.​

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANT BOUGHT THE FORECLOSED PROPERTY WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE HAD BEEN APPEALED; DEFENDANT WAS A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE AND WAS THEREFORE INSULATED FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE APPELLATE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Bartlett) was a purchaser in good faith and for value of the foreclosed property. The foreclosure was reversed on appeal. Defendant, as the fee owner of the property, was insulated from the effects of the reversal:

Where a judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed on appeal, the successful appellant may seek restitution of the real property lost by the judgment (see CPLR 5015[d]; 5523). However, where the real property was sold pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and the title is held by “a purchaser in good faith and for value,” recovery is limited to the value of the real property (id. § 5523). In the absence of a stay of the sale or an outstanding notice of pendency, title of the purchaser in good faith and for value “is . . . insulate[d] . . . from the effects of an appellate reversal” … .

Here, in support of its cross-motion, Bartlett established, through an affidavit of its member, that Bartlett acquired title to the property subsequent to a foreclosure sale, without actual knowledge of a successful appeal by the plaintiffs in the underlying action that resulted in a vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale … . The affidavit also demonstrated that the plaintiffs had not obtained a stay of the foreclosure sale in the underlying action. Under these circumstances, Bartlett established … that it was a purchaser in good faith and for value entitled to the protection of CPLR 5523 … . Puretz v Mae, 2024 NY Slip Op 06227, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A buyer of foreclosed property who had no knowledge the judgment of foreclosure had been appealed is insulated from the effects of a reversal on appeal. The buyer, as a purchaser in good faith for value, is the fee owner of the property.

 

/ ,

THE PEOPLE’S “READY FOR TRIAL” STATEMENT, MADE BEFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS FILED, WAS CONCEDEDLY ILLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the People conceded the statement of readiness for trial was illusory. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds should have been granted:

“Ready for trial” for purposes of CPL 30.30 means “present readiness, not a prediction or expectation of future readiness” … . “A statement of readiness at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock” … .

Here, as the People correctly concede, their statement of readiness filed on November 9, 2021, before the filing of the indictment, was illusory and thus ineffective to stop the speedy trial clock … . The People also acknowledge that they did not thereafter declare their readiness until after the six-month period had expired and, therefore, that the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial should have been granted … . People v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 06214, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A “ready for trial” statement which is a prediction or an expectation of future readiness is illusory and invalid.

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD ALLEGATIONS WHICH MERELY AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this traffic accident case should have been granted to the extent the amendment merely amplified the allegations in the original notice. By contrast, the attempts to amend the notice by adding new theories of liability were properly denied. Plaintiff, a police officer, was a passenger in a police car driven by another officer, Lassen. Plaintiff sued Lassen for negligent operation of the police car and the city for negligent supervision and training:

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add allegations relating to purported acts or omissions regarding Lassen’s operation of the police vehicle, including causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e asserted against the City defendants and predicated upon Lassen’s alleged violation of various provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law regulating the operation of motor vehicles … . These causes of action were based upon the same purported acts and omissions already set forth in the notice of claim … . Since Lassen’s alleged negligent and/or reckless operation of the police vehicle and the City’s concomitant negligence in failing to properly supervise and/or train Lassen were set forth in the notice of claim and the complaint, the new allegations effectively “amplif[ied]” the previously asserted allegations and did not constitute “new, distinct, and independent theories of liability” … . The fact that the proposed amended complaint alleged violations of statutory provisions not set forth in the notice of claim or original complaint, was not, standing alone, a basis to deny leave to amend … . Since the notice of claim “provided information . . . sufficient to alert the [defendants] to the potential [General Municipal Law § 205-e] cause[s] of action” predicated upon Lassen’s alleged failure to properly operate the police vehicle … , the court should not have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add those allegations on the ground that they were outside the existing notice of claim. Mitchell v Jimenez, 2024 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A motion to amend a notice of claim which seeks to amplify allegations in the original notice should be granted. A motion to amend a notice of claim which seeks to add new theories of liability is properly denied.

 

/

THE FOLD-DOWN LADDER WHICH WAS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE CEILING WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A LADDER FOR GAINING ACCESS TO THE ATTIC; PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN THE LADDER DETACHED FROM THE CEILING; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor :Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff needed to access the attic using a fold-down ladder which was permanently attached to the ceiling. The ladder came loose from the ceiling and plaintiff fell to the floor:

​… [T]he plaintiff described the ladder as “a type of stairs that are up on the attic and you pull them” with a rope, and the stairs would unfold and extend to the floor to allow someone to climb up them. The plaintiff acknowledged that the pull-down attic stairs were permanently affixed to the ceiling, but he also testified that climbing the pull-down attic stairs was the only way to access the attic, which he was required to access to connect certain cables to a security camera. * * *

… [T]he pull-down attic stairs, in effect, operated as a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … , since the pull-down attic stairs served as the functional equivalent of a ladder at the time of the accident … . The plaintiff’s testimony that the pull-down attic stairs detached from the ceiling and fell as he was ascending them, causing him to fall, demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) and that this violation proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . …

To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision mandating compliance with concrete specifications …  Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(1), “[e]very ladder shall be capable of sustaining without breakage, dislodgment or loosening of any component at least four times the maximum load intended to be placed thereon.” Here, given the plaintiff’s testimony that the pull-down attic stairs fell as he was ascending them, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(1) … . Jaimes-Gutierrez v 37 Raywood Dr., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06187, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: Although the fold-down stairs to the attic were permanently attached to the ceiling, it it was the functional equivalent of a ladder and served as a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

 

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