Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined defendants had demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of ice alleged to be on a step. The proof submitted by the defendants included evidence that the step was routinely inspected every morning, although no evidence of such an inspection on the morning in question was submitted: The […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant’s request for an “extreme emotional disturbance” jury charge should have been granted, in spite of the defendant’s withdrawing his CPL 250.10 notice re: offering mental health evidence. At trial the defendant did not introduce any evidence of or cross-examine any witness […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a defendant may be competent to stand trial but not competent to proceed pro se, but determined the trial court did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights by not conducting a sua sponte inquiry into his mental health when he asked proceed pro […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals, in answering a question posed by the Second Circuit, determined a two-year time-limit on bringing suit against an insurance company was unreasonable because suit could not be brought until the damaged property was replaced. Therefore, as was true in this case, if the damage-repair […]
In finding the agent (Sussman) liable for a contract because the principal was not fully disclosed, the Second Department wrote: …[The evidence] indicates at best that Sussman was acting as an agent for a “partially disclosed principal,” in that the agency relationship was known, but the identity of the principal remained undisclosed (Restatement [Second] […]
In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined the employer [Microtech] was entitled to the protection of the Workers’ Compensation Law and a suit against the employer by the hospital (which paid out Labor Law claims to the injured workers) was properly dismissed. The employer had hired undocumented workers [the Lemas] […]
In determining Supreme Court erred when it ordered the county to produce documents sought during discovery without reviewing them to determine the applicability of the asserted public interest privilege, the Second Department wrote: CPLR 3101(a) broadly mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” This provision […]
The Second Department determined that landowners who were issued a zoning variance were necessary parties in the action challenging the variance. The landowners had not been properly served and Supreme Court went ahead and determined the merits without the landowners in the suit. On appeal the petitioners did not dispute that the landowners were necessary […]
The Second Department determined that the police officer’s warrantless entry into defendant’s backyard constituted a search because the defendant had an expectation of privacy there. The fact that the officer was aware of an apparently false report of a fire in the area did not justify the application of the emergency doctrine (also analyzed in […]
The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and dismissed a lawsuit stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from a subway platform to the tracks below. The court explained the negligence criteria with respect to the crowd on a subway platform: “A subway company is not negligent merely because it permits crowds to gather on its platform. Before […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy