You are here: / MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY...

Search Results

/ ,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged, exhaustive opinion by Justice Miller (too detailed to be fairly summarized here), determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction for a 1991 murder was properly granted (requiring a new trial). The early 90’s trial lasted one day. One of the police investigators has since been implicated in facilitating false identification testimony. The finger and palm print evidence did not match the defendant or his co-defendant. The blood evidence didn’t match. Crucial blood evidence was never tested and may have been lost. The identification evidence, the only evidence upon which the conviction could be based, was problematic. With respect to the criteria for newly discovered evidence in this context, the court wrote:

… [A] motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence should only be granted if the court finds, as a factual matter, that the movant has demonstrated that “[1] [n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment . . . [2] which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and [3] which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10[1][g]).

The remaining three criteria should be used to evaluate the ultimate issue of whether the new evidence would “create a probability” of a more favorable verdict… . In assessing the probable impact of the new evidence, the court should consider whether and to what extent the new evidence is (1) material to the pertinent issues in the case, (2) cumulative to evidence that was already presented to the jury, and (3) merely impeaching or contradicting the evidence presented at trial … . People v Hargrove, 2018 NY Slip Op 02649, Second Dept 4-18-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that although plaintiff did not demonstrate spoliation of evidence warranting striking the answer, the plaintiff was entitled to an order of preclusion regarding any requested documents which defendants claimed did not exist. Plaintiff was shot by an intruder in his apartment building and had demanded any documents concerning the doors, locks and security measures in force at the building:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to impose a sanction upon the defendants for spoliation of evidence. The plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of establishing that spoliation occurred as there was no evidence submitted that the requested documents ever actually existed … . The plaintiff also did not establish that the absence of any such documents deprived him of his ability to prove his claim … . …

… [U]nder the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have exercised its discretion to grant the plaintiff the alternative relief of an order of preclusion. An order of preclusion may be entered where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious … . “The willful and contumacious character of a party’s conduct may be inferred from the party’s repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, and the absence of any reasonable excuse for those failures, or a failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time” … . Here, the defendants failed to produce relevant documents that were directed to be produced by the preliminary conference order. That failure led to two motions by the plaintiff to compel compliance, only to have the defendants assert that the building had been sold shortly after the preliminary conference order had been issued and that all documents had been transferred to the new owner. The new owner then denied having any of the requested documents. The defendants offer no excuse for their conduct. The defendants’ dilatory discovery conduct cannot be condoned, and it would be manifestly unfair to the plaintiff for the defendants to attempt to offer any of the subject documents at trial, should the documents be located. Watson v 518 Pa. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02666, Second Dept 4-18-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, DISCOVERY, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/PRECLUSION (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EVIDENCE, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, DISCOVERY, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING NEW INJURIES WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants’ motion to strike the purported supplemental bills of particulars was properly granted. The supplemental bills of particulars alleged new injuries in this rear-end collision case. The supplemental bills of particulars were actually amended bills of particulars. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the defendants were not prejudiced by the new allegations and failed to explain the delay:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the documents he denominated the “second supplemental bill of particulars” and “third supplemental bill of particulars” were, in reality, amended bills of particulars, as they sought to add new injuries (see CPLR 3403[b]… ). While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise, here, the plaintiff failed to establish the absence of prejudice or surprise to the defendants, and failed to adequately explain the delay in seeking to add the new injuries … . Kirk v Nahon, 2018 NY Slip Op 02604, Second Dept 4-18-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (BILLS OF PARTICULARS, PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/BILLS OF PARTICULARS ( PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS (PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS (PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3403 (BILLS OF PARTICULARS, PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (BILLS OF PARTICULARS, PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING NEW INJURIES WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))

/

SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE THE JUVENILE OFFENDER COULD RECEIVE IF SHE FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY, THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined juvenile defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant, who was 15, in connection with a robbery charge, was offered a youthful offender adjudication and a conditional discharge if she met certain conditions, including school attendance and curfews, for a year. The sentencing judge told defendant she could face 25 years in prison if she did not meet the conditions. Defendant did not meet the conditions. She moved to withdraw her plea because the judge’s statement she could receive a 25 year sentence was wrong. As a juvenile, the maximum possible sentence was 3 1/2 to 10:

Whether a plea is knowing, intelligent and voluntary is dependent upon a number of factors “including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused” … . This Court has repeatedly held that defendants must also be made aware of the sentencing parameters so that they may access the propriety of entering a plea of guilty … . To that end, a defendant’s receipt of inaccurate information regarding her possible sentence exposure is clearly a factor which must be considered by the court on a plea withdrawal motion … . …

That defendant was offered an extremely beneficial plea that would allow her to be afforded youthful offender treatment and avoid incarceration does not, as argued by the People, detract from the fact that defendant was misinformed as to her sentencing exposure. Similarly, that defendant received a lesser sentence than what was promised by the court does not remedy the involuntariness of her plea of guilty … . Under the circumstances presented, it cannot be found that defendant would have accepted the promised plea and entered a plea of guilty, if she had been accurately informed of the sentencing parameters. People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02566, First Dept 4-17-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE THE JUVENILE OFFENDER COULD RECEIVE IF SHE FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY, THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE THE JUVENILE OFFENDER COULD RECEIVE IF SHE FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY, THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SENTENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA, SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE THE JUVENILE OFFENDER COULD RECEIVE IF SHE FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY, THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENT CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA, SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE THE JUVENILE OFFENDER COULD RECEIVE IF SHE FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY, THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a written guarantee to pay the debt of another was not enforceable because no consideration for the guarantee was included in the written guarantee. The 2nd Department further held that an oral guarantee would have been enforceable if it was induced by plaintiff’s promise to hold off on bringing suit.  But only plaintiff’s counsel made that argument unsupported by an affidavit from the plaintiff:

… “[N]othing” in the writing supported the plaintiff’s claim that [she] had agreed to “forbear() pursuing a claim” in exchange for the promised payments]). In the absence of such a binding promise by plaintiff, the guaranty is unenforceable for want of consideration. “Unless both parties to a contract are bound, so that either can sue the other for a breach, neither is bound” … . …

Case law has established that an oral promise to guarantee the debt of another may be enforced, notwithstanding General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(2), if the plaintiff “prove[s the promise] is supported by new consideration moving to the promisor and beneficial to him and that the promisor has become in the intention of the parties a principal debtor primarily liable” … . Thus, plaintiff could enforce [the] guaranty if she could prove, through parol evidence, that he gave her the guaranty in exchange for her unwritten promise to forbear from suing him until the due date of the guaranty, which would constitute new consideration beneficial to him. Plaintiff fails, however, to offer any admissible evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertions by her counsel) that she actually made such a promise. Reddy v Mihos, 2018 NY Slip Op 02565, First Dept 4-17-18

​CONTRACT LAW (GUARANTEE, ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CONTRACT LAW, GUARANTEE,  ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/GUARANTEE (CONTRACT LAW, ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))/CONSIDERATION (CONTRACT LAW, GUARANTEE,  ABSENCE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERATION RENDERED ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL GUARANTEE UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial court erred when it deviated from a stipulation entered into by the parties concerning the measure of damages for trees inadvertently cut and removed from plaintiffs’ property by defendants:

… Supreme Court erred in deviating from their stipulation in rendering the damages award. No grounds have been shown to vacate the parties’ clearly expressed agreement as to the merchantability of the various trees or the methodology to be used in formulating the award. As the parties here were “free to chart their own course [and] fashion the basis upon which [this] particular controversy [would] be resolved” … , Supreme Court was not free to substitute its own judgment for that of the parties … . We must therefore determine, in the exercise of our discretion and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the appropriate measure of damages to be awarded as a consequence of defendants’ illegal removal of the 442 trees from plaintiffs’ property. * * *

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and mindful of the overriding purpose and intent of RPAPL 861, we find that plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages of $250 per tree for the 442 trees cut and removed… . We emphasize that our discretionary determination in this regard is narrow and circumscribed by the parties’ stipulation … , which we are bound to honor. Halstead v Fournia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02525, Third Dept 4-12-18

​REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/TIMBER (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/TREES (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES WHICH DESCRIBED THE DAMAGES AVAILABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) FOR THE INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF TREES FROM PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined negligence causes of action against the distributor (Durst) and (Canje) retailer of a sulfuric acid drain opener, and a negligent discharge of a contractual obligation (launching an instrument of harm) cause of action against the distributor should not have been dismissed:

Because defendant Canje, the retail outlet at which the product was purchased, never agreed to abide by the sale policy of the manufacturer, third-party defendant Hercules Chemical Company, Inc., to restrict the sale of the product to plumbing and/or building professionals, it cannot be held liable for launching a force of harm in negligent discharge of a contractual obligation (see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). However, issues of fact exist whether defendant Durst, the distributor that sold the product to Canje, had a contractual duty to refrain from selling the product to Canje and whether Durst breached this duty and its acknowledged contractual undertakings to take appropriate steps to assure the proper sale and use of the product and to comply with the Seller’s Notice prohibiting sales to non-professionals and the display of the product where it was easily accessible. Durst argues that even if it breached such a duty it did not launch a force or instrument of harm. However, … [t]his case, in which there is evidence that Durst created the unsafe condition by supplying the product without proper safeguards, is … akin to Landon v Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc. (22 NY3d 1 [2013]), in which the Court of Appeals found that the allegation that the defendant’s negligent testing procedures subjected the plaintiff to legal proceedings stated a cause of action based on the launch of a force of harm. Janiya W.-G. v Smith, 2018 NY Slip Op 02557, First Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, LAUNCH OF IN INSTRUMENT OF HARM, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/INSTRUMENT OF HARM, LAUNCH OF (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, ESPINAL, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

/

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action for negligent entrustment of a motorcycle properly survived a summary judgment motion. The motorcycle was borrowed by Perkins from Hines. When Zimmer pulled out of his driveway, Perkins, who was operating the motorcycle, swerved and hit a tree. Perkins sued Zimmer and Zimmer sued Hines for negligent entrustment. Perkins had a driving permit but did not have a driver’s license:

… [T]his appeal deals with a negligent entrustment cause of action; the issue is not Perkins’ negligence in operating the motorcycle, but whether Hines should have entrusted the motorcycle to him in the first instance … . Thus, the fact that Perkins did not possess a motorcycle license “is a factor to consider in determining whether” Hines knew or should have known if Perkins was competent to operate her motorcycle. …

We reject Hines’ argument that a negligent entrustment cause of action cannot stand under the present circumstances because the person who was injured (Perkins) was the one to whom a dangerous instrument was allegedly negligently entrusted … . Similarly, it is irrelevant that Zimmer was not physically injured. The injury alleged to him here is “financial harm resulting from potential liability of a ‘concurrent’ tort-feasor” for Perkins’ injuries while using the dangerous instrument … . Zimmer is not precluded from obtaining a recovery from Hines merely because Perkins may not be able to directly recover from Hines based on her negligent entrustment of the motorcycle to him; the situation is analogous to one in which a third-party tortfeasor “may implead for contribution or indemnity the employer of an injured employee, despite the employee’s inability to recover from the employer directly” due to the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Perkins v County of Tompkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 02530, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/MOTOCYCLES (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVER’S LICENSE ( (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))

/

DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendants did not eliminate all trial issues of fact in this ice and snow slip and fall case. The defendants did not demonstrate when the area had last been cleared or inspected. The fact that the fall occurred in a restricted area was not determinative because defendants were aware the area was used by people and there were no signs instructing people not to use it:

Even if we agreed with defendants that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition, we conclude that defendants did not meet their initial moving burden inasmuch as their own proof failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact on the issue of constructive notice… .. In this regard, defendants’ proof, including the photographs, did not suffice to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area in question … . Additionally, even though the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was a restricted area, the record evidence shows that defendants were aware that people would cross through this area and there were no signs instructing people not to do so. Hurley v City of Glens Falls, 2018 NY Slip Op 02529, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant municipality and hockey club were negligent in failing to adequately protect the plaintiff, a spectator, from being struck by a hockey puck, The goals had been repositioned in areas where there was no protective netting behind them:

It is well-settled that an owner or operator of an athletic field or facility “is not an insurer of the safety of its spectators” … and that, under the assumption of risk doctrine, consenting “[s]pectators and bystanders . . . assume risks associated with a sporting event or activity, even at times when they are not actively watching the event” … . However, “a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks”… . Notwithstanding a spectator’s assumption of risk, an owner or occupier of land remains under a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent injury to those who are present on the property … . In the context of hockey rinks, “the owner’s duty owed to spectators is discharged by providing screening around the area behind the hockey goals, where the danger of being struck by a puck is the greatest, as long as the screening is of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire to view the game from behind such screening” … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ proof demonstrating that defendants’ repositioning of the hockey goals along the less protected sides of the rink — “where the danger of being struck by a puck is greatest” …  — was sufficient to show the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants satisfied their reasonable duty of care owed to the child walking down the ramp behind the repositioned goal. Smero v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 NY Slip Op 02521, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/SPECTATORS (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/HOCKEY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD 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