You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AND REINSTATE COUNTERCLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have reinstated defendants’ counterclaims which were rejected by the jury after a lengthy trial. The First Department explained the criteria for setting aside a jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a):

Defendants are not entitled to reinstatement of their counterclaims, which were each unequivocally rejected by the jury after a lengthy trial. Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a jury verdict, or order a new trial, where “the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence,” or “in the interest of justice.” In making this determination, the court must proceed with caution, because “in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict” … . Thus, a verdict should only be set aside if the evidence is so in favor of the moving party that the verdict “could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … , or in the interests of justice due to “errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2026 NY Slip Op 05231, First Dept 9-3-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for setting aside a jury verdict. Here the jury’s rejection of defendants’ counterclaims should not have been disturbed.​

 

, , , ,

HERE THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUGGESTED INJURY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SO THE HOSPITAL WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED NUNC PRO TUNC SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc should have been granted in this medical malpractice action:

On August 31, 2015, the plaintiff, Estefani Tenezaca, gave birth to the infant A.J.L. (hereinafter the infant) at Elmhurst Hospital Center (hereinafter Elmhurst), a facility controlled by the defendant. The infant was born prematurely at 30 weeks gestation and was treated at Elmhurst until September 16, 2015, when she was transferred to another hospital.

In July 2016, the plaintiff, as parent and natural guardian of the infant, served a notice of claim on the defendant, alleging, among other things, medical malpractice in the defendant’s treatment of the infant. * * *

The plaintiff’s experts opined that the infant suffered a massive bilateral parenchymal hemorrhage as a result of the treatment documented in Elmhurst’s records. * * *

Inasmuch as the Elmhurst records, upon independent review, suggested injury attributable to medical malpractice, those records provided the defendant with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … .  Additionally, the plaintiff made an initial showing that the defendant would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving a notice of claim, and the defendant failed to rebut that showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … . The plaintiff also established a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim … . Tenezaca v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 05208, Second Dept 9-2-25

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action plaintiff moved to deem the late notice of claim timely served. The medical records suggested injury attributable to malpractice. Therefore the hospital was deemed to have had timely notice of the nature of the claim.

 

,

WHETHER A CONDITION IS “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” IS USUALLY A JURY QUESTION; IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OVER THE FORK PART OF A FORKLIFT PARKED IN AN AISLE OF A HOME DEPOT STORE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that whether a condition is “open and obvious” is usually a question of fact for the jury:

“A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . “However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” … . “The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … .

Here, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the forklift was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . “Some hazards, although discernable, may be hazardous because of their nature and location” … . In particular, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the forklift’s location, in relation to the five quarter decking the plaintiff was loading into his cart when the accident occurred, constituted an inherently dangerous condition … . The plaintiff testified, inter alia, that he could not put his cart right next to the location in the aisle where he was retrieving the five quarter decking because the forklift was in the way. Simon v Plainview Ave. Assoc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05205, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff tripped over the fork part of a forklift parked in an aisle of a Home Depot store. The complaint should not have been dismissed. Whether the condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous was a question of fact.

 

,

PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACKWARD TO ALLOW OTHERS TO EXIT THE ELEVATOR; THE FLOOR OF THE ELEVATOR WAS SIX TO TWELVE INCHES ABOVE THE BUILDING FLOOR AND PLAINTIFF SEVERELY INJURED HIS KNEE; THE SIX TO TWELVE INCH GAP WAS NOT THE TYPE OF “ELEVATION RISK” COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the 6 to 12-inch gap between the floor of the elevator and the unfinished floor just outside the elevator door was not the type of “elevation risk” addressed by Labor Law 240(1). Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240(1) action should have been dismissed. However, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 cause of action (unsafe condition):

Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. Not every fall results in the “extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . The statute protects workers only from those falls stemming from the “extraordinary elevation risks” created by “the relative elevation at which the [work] must be performed” and not from “the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site” … .

It is true that “there is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … . However, under the present circumstances, the 6-to-12 inch gap between the elevator doorway and the floor “was not a physically significant height elevation differential to trigger the protection of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . Also, neither the elevator nor the missing ramp was the “functional equivalent of a safety device enumerated in the statute” … . Instead, the record supports a conclusion that plaintiff’s injury arose from the type of “usual and ordinary” perils plaintiff could expect at his job site … . Ambrose v City Univ. Constr. Fund, 2026 NY Slip Op 05060, Second Dept 8-20-26

Practice Point: Here the six to twelve inch gap between the floor of the elevator and the building floor was not the type of “elevation risk” covered by Labor Law 240(1). Labor Law 200 (unsafe condition) may apply.​

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING AT MORE THAN TWICE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN HE COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER CAR, KILLING THE DRIVER; USUALLY EXCESSIVE SPEED ALONE WILL NOT SUPPORT A CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CHARGE; HERE, HOWEVER, THE EXCESSIVE SPEED IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the indictment, over a dissent, determined the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient for criminally negligent homicide. The defendant was driving at twice the speed limit in a residential neighborhood when he collided with another vehicle at an intersection, killing the driver. Generally driving in excess of the speed limit, alone, will not support a criminally negligent homicide charge. However, here, the excessive speed, in combination with other factors, was deemed sufficient:

[T]he culpable risk-creating conduct necessary to support a finding of recklessness or criminal negligence generally requires ‘some additional affirmative act’ aside from ‘driving faster than the posted speed limit'” … , which transforms speeding into dangerous speeding, by engaging in some other “risk-creating” behavior such as disregarding traffic signals … . However, there is no per se rule that speeding alone is insufficient … . There are circumstances where excessive speed “absent proof of any other contributing factors” is sufficient … . The extent of the violation of the posted speed limit and the surrounding circumstances must be considered … .

“[I]n order to sustain a conviction for criminally negligent homicide in a case in which the principal item of evidence consists of proof of the defendant’s use of excessive speed, [the law does not require that] the prosecution must always prove some other traffic law violation unrelated to the defendant’s rate of speed. While it may be accurate to say that an infraction of the posted speed limit does not ipso facto establish criminal negligence, it would not be accurate to say that a trier of fact may never conclude that in light of the time, the place, the weather conditions, and in light of any number of other factors which might be established at the trial, the defendant’s use of excessive speed was criminally negligent” … .

Here, … [t]he evidence, if accepted as true, demonstrated that the defendant disregarded road conditions, i.e., the fact that he was traveling in a residential neighborhood with a playground on the corner of the intersection, when he decided to drive his vehicle through the intersection at well above twice the posted speed limit … . The evidence further indicated that he was showing off to his friend how the vehicle “drives,” which, considering the fact that he accelerated the vehicle’s speed while allegedly doing so, indicated that he was showing off how the vehicle operated at a high speed. The evidence further indicated that he ignored a traffic control sign directing motorists to exercise additional caution … . People v Lee, 2026 NY Slip Op 05038, Second Dept 8-19-26

Practice Point: Here in the fatal-vehicle-accident case, defendant’s excessive speed, in combination with the nature of the neighborhood and other factors, supported the criminally negligent homicide charge.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE DISMISSED FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PETITION BECAUSE MOTHER HAD PREVIOUSLY COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN FLORIDA; BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversed Family Court and remitted the matter. The Family Court judge dismissed the father’s New York custody petition on the ground mother had previously commenced a custody proceeding in Florida where she and the child resided. The judge, however, did not follow the procedures mandated by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act which must precede a ruling that one of the two courts is the most appropriate forum:

Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (see Domestic Relations Law article 5-A), a New York court “may not exercise its jurisdiction” in a child custody proceeding “if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A], unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[1] …). “If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A], the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2]; see Domestic Relations Law § 77-f …). “If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A] does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2] …).

A court, acting pursuant to these provisions, must make a record of its communications with a court of another state on substantive matters, must promptly inform the parties of the communication, and grant the parties access to the record (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-i[4] …). The court may, in its discretion, allow the parties to participate in the communication, but “[i]f the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i[2] …). Matter of Adames v Digangi, 2026 NY Slip Op 05022, Second Dept 8-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the statutory procedure mandated when a judge must decide which of two forums is appropriate for a custody proceeding. Here mother commenced a custody proceeding in Florida and father subsequently commenced a custody proceeding in New York.

 

, , ,

IN AN ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS, TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE SUCH THAT THE FOUR-YEAR LOOK-BACK DOES NOT APPLY, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE EACH ELEMENT OF COMMON-LAW FRAUD; SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF FRAUD OR A COLORABLE CLAIM OF A FRAUDULENT SCHEME ARE WHAT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, remitted the matter to Supreme Court for application of the recently clarified standard for the prima facie demonstration of fraud in an action alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments. The issue is whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of fraud to overcome the four-year look-back provision in the former Rent Stabilization Law:

… [T]he Court [of Appeals] refined the common-law standard applied to allegations of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments subject to rent stabilization on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 … . More specifically, [the Court of Appeals] “made clear that, for the fraud exception [to the four-year lookback period in the former Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516 (a)] to apply, a plaintiff need not demonstrate each element of common-law fraud and instead must put forth sufficient indicia of fraud or a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme” … .

Parallel to the Court of Appeals’ development of the common law applicable to fraudulent deregulation claims, the legislature addressed the fraudulent deregulation standard by statute … . Under the legislature’s statutory amendments, the relevant inquiry is whether the landlord ” ‘knowingly engaged in [a] fraudulent scheme [to deregulate] after a consideration of the totality of the circumstances’ ” … To date, the Court of Appeals has not had occasion to “address to what extent this legislation differs from [the] common-law rule, and, if there is any difference, the impact or applicability of that legislation” … . Aras v B-U Realty Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 04983, First Dept 8-13-26

​Practice Point; Consult this decision for insight into what a plaintiff must allege or demonstrate to survive a motion to dismiss or to warrant summary judgment in an action alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments and seeking the “fraud exception” to the statutory four-year look-back for damages.

 

,

SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS OF AN INTERESTED PARTY (THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE) WHICH REFERRED TO MATTERS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THAT PARTY’S KNOWLEDGE CREATED AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined inconsistencies in plaintiff’s deposition testimony as well as the fact he was the only witness to the incident raised credibility issues which precluded summary judgment:

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. His deposition testimony, which included inconsistencies regarding the location of the alleged accident and was generally vague, in addition to a lack of other supporting evidence, placed his own credibility in issue and presented triable issues of fact regarding how the alleged accident occurred … . The plaintiff also testified at his deposition that he was the only witness to the alleged accident, which further raised credibility issues, since “[o]n a motion for summary judgment . . . , self-serving statements of an interested party which refer to matters exclusively within that party’s knowledge create an issue of credibility which should not be decided by the court but should be left for the trier of facts” … . Espinal v 1760-1770, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04926, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: On a summary judgment motion, statements by an interested party which refer to matters exclusively within that party’s knowledge can create a credibility issue which precludes summary judgment.

 

, ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DR. VELASQUEZ WAS NEGLIGENT; HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE OPINION IS FACT-SPECIFIC AND DETAILED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined this medical malpractice action against one of the defendants, Dr. Velasquez, should have been dismissed. The opinion is fact-specific and goes through the evidence in granular detail. Roth v Velasquez, 2026 NY Slip Op 04915, First Dept 8-6-26

 

, ,

THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEFENDANT DRIVER’S STRIKING A 12-YEAR-OLD PEDESTRIAN WAS THE PEDESTRIAN’S SUDDENLY RUNNING ONTO THE HIGHWAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this traffic-accident action stemming from defendant’s striking a 12-year-old pedestrian (J.W.) should have been dismissed. J.W. suddenly ran into defendant driver’s (Li’s) highway lane:

Li testified that he was driving south in the right lane of the Hutchinson River Parkway in the Bronx at about 45 miles per hour when he first saw J.W. standing 100 feet in front of him in a grassy area on the side of the highway to his right. Li testified that when the vehicle approached, J.W. made a “running gesture” and began to run towards the vehicle when it was approximately two car lengths away. Li did not brake or honk his horn, but did take his foot off the gas pedal and was in the process of moving into the left lane to move away from J.W. when J.W. entered the highway, at which point the front right side of the van struck him. Police conducted sobriety tests at the scene and allowed Li to drive the van from the scene. He did not receive a ticket, violation, or citation as a result of the collision. It is undisputed that pedestrians are prohibited from occupying the location where J.W. was traversing (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-a).

Defendants established prima facie that J.W.’s act of running into the highway unlawfully was the sole proximate cause of the collision … . Li’s testimony shows that he was confronted with a sudden and unforeseen situation in which he was forced to make a split second decision and could not “weigh alternative courses of action” such that “he cannot reasonably be held to the same conduct as one who has had full opportunity to reflect” … . “While it is often a jury question whether a person’s reaction to an emergency was reasonable, summary resolution is possible when the individual presents sufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of his or her actions and there is no opposing evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a legitimate question of fact on the issue” … . Danielle W. v Li, 2026 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 7-30-26

 

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