The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not make out a prima facie case that the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law. Therefore defendants’ summary judgment motion should not have been granted: … [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants, including, inter alia, a transcript […]
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial judge should not have disqualified plaintiff’s expert in this elevator accident case. Although the expert was not a professional engineer, he had been qualified as an expert in over 120 state and federal cases: Supreme Court erred in summarily disqualifying the opinion of Patrick A. Carrajat […]
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s bringing several meritless lawsuits against defendant and her attorneys over the course of ten years warranted sanctions: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant an award of sanctions despite noting that plaintiff’s “conduct was entirely frivolous,” “abusive,” and “fabricated.” The record firmly established that […]
The Fourth Department, suppressing evidence seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, held the police had to “manipulate” the checks which were in plain view to determine they were forged. Because the nature of the checks was not apparent until they were “manipulated,” the “plain view” exception was not applicable: … [W]e […]
The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a prospective juror’s indication he or she would hold defendant’s refusal to testify against the defendant required excusal “for cause:” Here, the prospective juror gave “some indication of bias” … by stating that he “[a]bsolutely” might hold it against defendant if defendant chose […]
The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should not have been prevented from presenting evidence of her mental health in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding under the collateral estoppel doctrine. Although mother had previously been adjudicated unable to provide proper and adequate care of the children in 2018, there was no evidence of mother’s current mental […]
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the People’s appeal was timely because defendant never served the order dismissing the indictment on them so the 30-day appeal period never started running, and (2) the People were not obligated to turn over Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) documents to comply with their discovery […]
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID-19 tolls suspended the running of the statute of limitations in this personal injury case, rendering the action timely commenced: Pursuant to CPLR 214 (5), a three-year statute of limitations applies to an action to recover damages for personal injury. Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on June […]
The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate that an upward departure from SORA risk-level two to three was warranted: … [W]e conclude that the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is more likely to reoffend based on his bipolar diagnosis. The only evidence offered […]
The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to County Court, over a five-justice concurrence, determined County Court must rule on whether defendant’s California conviction involved a violent or a non-violent sexual offense. If the facts of the case indicate the California offense was non-violent, the New York statute which requires designation of the defendant as a […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy