You are here: / Evidence
,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL REPORT DID NOT ADHERE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 137 AND COULD BE DEEMED INADMISSIBLE FOR THAT REASON, THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO MAKE A TIMELY OBJECTION TO THE REPORT; THE PRECLUSION OF THE REPORT WAS THEREFORE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the medical report (by Dr, Kountis) finding claimant had a 42.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right wrist should not have been precluded because it did not meet the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law 137. Although the Board has the power to preclude the report for that reason, the employer did not make a timely objection to the report:

Although “[a] report of an examination that does not substantially comply with the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law [§] 137 . . . shall not be admissible as evidence,” a party raising an objection to such a report’s admissibility must “raise [that] objection in a timely manner” … . Claimant filed Kountis’ report in March 2023, after which the employer was notified that it had 75 days to respond in any of several enumerated ways, including by filing a memorandum to refute the sufficiency and credibility of the report. At no time during that 75-day period did the employer challenge Kountis’ report for failing to adhere to the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law § 137. Further, the employer failed to raise the argument during the subsequent hearing held in September 2023. It is clear that the employer had, and failed to avail itself of, ample opportunity to challenge Kountis’ report prior to the WCLJ’s determination. As a result, the employer’s eventual challenge was untimely, and it was error for the Board to preclude Kountis’ report … . Matter of Troiano v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 06377, Third Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: If there are grounds for precluding a medical report for failure to meet the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law 137, the employer must make a timely objection to the report. Here the employer failed to object to the report during the 75-day period allowed for objections and failed to object in a hearing held six or seven months after the report was filed. The Third Department determined, under those facts, it was error to preclude the report.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE USED HER ARM TO KEEP THE ELEVATOR DOOR FROM CLOSING; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE ELEVATOR WAS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION TWO WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants (building owner and elevator company) were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint which alleged the elevator doors slammed shut on plaintiff’s hand. A video showed that plaintiff extended her arm between the door frame and the elevator door to keep it from closing:

Movants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating that the elevator door was safe and code compliant at the time of the accident and that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The report prepared by defendant … , approximately two weeks prior to the accident, found that the subject elevator was maintained commensurate with local industry practices and that the systems functioned at or near recommended standards. Moreover, the video of the incident, which plaintiff authenticated by testifying that it was a fair and accurate depiction of the events, showed that plaintiff extended her arm between the door frame and the elevator door to keep the door from closing. Such evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact … . Ellerbee v 61 W. 62 Owners Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 06386, First Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: If you are injured using your arm or hand to stop an elevator door from closing and it is shown the elevator was working properly, your complaint will be dismissed. (But isn’t it foreseeable that people will try to stop an elevator door from closing with their hands, and shouldn’t there be a safety mechanism which would prevent the door from closing?)

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED UPON STATEMENTS BY AN INFORMANT; BUT THE WARRANT APPLICATION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BASIS OF THE INFORMANT’S KNOWLEDGE; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Second Department, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the search warrant failed the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test. The seized evidence should have been suppressed, requiring the dismissal of several counts:

… [W]e hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test … . The general allegation that the informant was “aware that narcotics are kept inside the location” provides no indication “that the information was based upon personal observation” … . Likewise, the informant’s statement that at some unidentified point in time the informant had conducted a narcotics transaction at that address “did not describe defendant’s activities with sufficient particularity to warrant an inference of personal knowledge” … . Nor was the information conveyed by the informant corroborated by police observation … . Accordingly, the informant’s statements fail to meet the requirements of Aguilar-Spinelli and, because there are no other allegations in the search warrant affidavit to establish “a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed or that evidence of a crime may” have been found at 205 Curtis Street … , the search warrant for that address was not supported by probable cause, and the evidence seized there should have been suppressed. People v Berry, 2025 NY Slip Op 06358, Second Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: If a search warrant is based upon an informant’s statement, to be valid, the warrant application must demonstrate the information was based upon the informant’s personal knowledge.

 

, , ,

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MENTAL-HEALTH TREATMENT OF A PEDOPHILE PRIEST WERE NOT PROTECTED BY PRIEST-PENITENT, PHYSICIAN-PATIENT OR PSYCHOLOGIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGES; THE NAMES OF OTHER CHILDREN ABUSED BY THE PRIEST ALLEGED TO HAVE ABUSED PLAINTIFF ARE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined progress reports concerning the mental health treatment of a pedophile priest were discoverable without redaction in this Child Victims Act case against the Diocese. The Diocese claimed the redacted information was protected from disclosure by the priest-penitent, physician-patient and psychologist-patient privileges. The Second Department determined those privileges were waived by the (pedophile) priest who consented to forwarding the reports to a third-party, a Bishop overseeing the priest’s progress. In addition, the priest-penitent privilege did not apply because the documents did not relate to spiritual guidance. The Second Department further determined that the names of other victims allegedly abused by the same priest were discoverable:

This appeal permits us to address two principal sets of issues. The first is a rare two-step analysis regarding the potential disclosure of progress reports and letters generated at the request of a religious organization to determine whether an alleged pedophile priest could be safely returned to duties at a parish. Under the circumstances of this appeal, we hold that the progress reports of an alleged pedophile priest that are shared with his Bishop with accompanying letters, to assist the Bishop in determining whether the priest may return to parish duties, fall outside the scope of the clergy-penitent privilege of confidentiality under CPLR 4505. Further, we hold that the physician-patient and psychologist-patient privileges of confidentiality for progress reports and letters generated by a psychological treatment facility to assist the same Bishop’s determination, and disclosed to the Bishop for that purpose, are waived under CPLR 4504 and 4507. Relatedly, we hold that the Appellate Division, Second Department, agrees with the reasoning of the Appellate Divisions, First and Third Departments, that in actions pursuant to the Child Victims Act (CVA) (see CPLR 214-g), courts may exercise discretion in favor of requiring the unredacted disclosure of the identities of alleged abuse victims other than the plaintiff, so long as those abuses were committed by the same alleged abuser rather than by any other alleged abuser. Maida v Diocese of Brooklyn, 2025 NY Slip Op 06314, Second Dept 11-19-25

​Practice Point: Consult this opinion for discussions of the nature of the priest-penitent, physician-patient and psychologist-patient privileges in the context of the discovery of documents relating to the mental health treatment of a pedophile priest accused of abusing children.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the discoverability of the names of other children abused by the priest who is alleged to have abused the plaintiff.

 

,

GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the defendant property-owner in this ladder-fall case was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability because the work related to a commercial purpose:

“Although the Labor Law generally imposes liability for worker safety on property owners and contractors, it exempts from liability ‘owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work'” ( … Labor Law §§ 240[1]; 241[6]). However, “[t]he exemption ‘was not intended to insulate from liability owners who use their one- or two-family houses purely for commercial purposes'” … . “‘[R]enovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose'” … . “Where the property serves both residential and commercial purposes, [a] determination as to whether the exemption applies in a particular case turns on the nature of the site and the purpose of the work being performed, and must be based on the owner’s intentions at the time of the injury” … .

Here, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption, including whether the work being performed related to a commercial purpose of the premises … and whether the defendant intended to use the premises as a three-family dwelling … .  Reyes v Rahman, 2025 NY Slip Op 06348, Second Dept 11-19-25

Practice Point: The homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability does not apply where the home is used for commercial purposes.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no liability under Labor Law 240(1) because plaintiff fell going down permanent steps after he stepped off the ladder:

Plaintiff testified that on the day of his accident he was working in a meeting room that had projection screens, soundproof walls, and raised floors, including a platform for the speakers. The platform had two access points — one via a ramp and the other on the opposite side of the platform, via a two-step staircase. Plaintiff needed to work on the ceiling above the platform, so he placed his ladder on the platform near the staircase. After he completed his work, he descended the ladder and placed both feet on the platform floor. He then turned to walk down the two-step staircase, missed a step, and fell.

There is no liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) where the plaintiff’s injuries are not related to the failure of a safety device, such as a ladder, to protect the plaintiff from a gravity-related hazard … . Where the “injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first instance, no [Labor Law § 240(1)] liability exists” … . Healy v Trinity Hudson Holdings, 2025 NY Slip Op 06278, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: The failure of absence of a safety device is a prerequisite for liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here plaintiff safely stepped onto a permanent platform from the ladder and then fell going down permanent steps—no Labor Law 240(1) liability.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT MOVED AND HE FELL; THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was standing at the top of the unsecured ladder when it moved and he fell. The fact that there were no witnesses to the accident did not raise a question fact because plaintiff’s testimony was not contradicted and his credibility was not called into question:

Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he worked at the top of the ladder, which was unsecured, it suddenly moved and fell, causing him to land on the floor and injure his shoulder. Plaintiff also testified that after he fell from the ladder, he stood it back up before his supervisor returned. The supervisor stated that upon his return to the room, plaintiff, who was standing next to the upright ladder, told him that the ladder was shaky and had fallen because no one was holding it.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The evidence established that defendant failed to provide a safety device to ensure that the ladder, which plaintiff was instructed to use, would remain upright while he worked. The evidence also showed that plaintiff fell off the ladder when it shifted and fell … . This evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and plaintiff was not obligated to show that the ladder itself was defective … . Molina v Chatham Towers, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06285, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a ladder-fall case, it is enough that the ladder was unsecured and moved. There is no need to show the ladder was defective.

 

,

CONTRARY TO THE STANDARD USED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, AN SLU NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ANY PRIOR SLU TO THE SAME PART OF THE BODY; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROPER STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing and remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board applied the wrong standard for compensation for an injury to a member for which an SLU had been made for a prior injury. The Board used the erroneous standard that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member:”

The Court of Appeals has clarified … that successive and “separate SLU awards for different injuries to the same statutory member are contemplated by [Workers’ Compensation Law §] 15 and, when a claimant proves that the second injury, ‘considered by itself and not in conjunction with the previous disability,’ has caused an increased loss of use, the claimant is entitled to an SLU award commensurate with that increased loss of use” … . Thus, a claimant’s entitlement to an additional SLU award for a successive injury to the same statutory member “turns upon the sufficiency of the medical proof adduced” … . “Such demonstration may include medical evidence that a prior injury and the current injury to the same member are ‘separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use of [the subject member]’ and that the current injury resulted in a greater degree of loss of use of the body member in question ‘beyond that . . . [of] the prior injury’ ” … .

… [T]he standard articulated and then applied by the Board, which relied solely upon Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ. (164 AD3d at 1510), was that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member” (emphasis supplied). The Board is not required to reduce or offset the SLU by the prior SLU where a “claimant demonstrates that a subsequent injury increased the loss of use of a body member beyond that resulting from the prior injury” (Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 38 NY3d at 444). Given that the Board’s decision did not consider, or otherwise ascertain the credibility of, the conflicting medical evidence that was before it — which included documentary and testimonial evidence from claimant’s treating physician — regarding the extent to which claimant’s injuries were “separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use” of his right leg … , the Board’s finding of a 12.5% SLU of the right leg must be reversed and the matter remitted for further consideration by the Board in accordance with the holding in Matter of Johnson [supra]. Matter of Krein v Green Haven Corr. Facility, 2025 NY Slip Op 06238, Third Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: When an SLU has been made for a prior injury, a subsequent SLU for the same part of the body need not be reduced by the amount of the prior SLU. The claimant can submit medical evidence that the injuries are separate pathologies which individually caused a specific amount of loss of use.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DEMONSTRATED A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR NOT TIMELY FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE AFTER A NINETY-DAY DEMAND, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH RELIED ON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY TWO SOURCES, BUT DID NOT SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS FROM THOSE SOURCES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, although plaintiff offered a justifiable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue, plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Therefore the complaint should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged the defendants negligently failed to provide adequate mental health and substance abuse treatment to the decedent, who died of a drug overdose in a shelter owned and operated by defendants:

Following a period of over one year during which plaintiff failed to respond to their discovery demands, defendants served plaintiff with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days (see CPLR 3216[b]). Plaintiff failed to respond within the 90-day period, resulting in defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Although plaintiff’s counsel offered a justifiable excuse for the failure to file a note of issue following defendants’ service of 90-day notices, plaintiff failed to submit an adequate affidavit of merit demonstrating a meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants’ motions … . In her affidavit, plaintiff, who had no personal knowledge of the events in question, relied on two unnamed hearsay sources … . Plaintiff offered no excuse for failing to provide affidavits from the shelter residents who supplied her with the information upon which her affidavit was based … , and, in any event, she did not show that defendants’ negligence was “a substantial cause of the events” resulting in her son’s death … . Felipe v Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., 2025 NY Slip Op 06252, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: In seeking to avoid dismissal of a complaint for failing to timely file a note of issue after a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must offer a justifiable excuse and demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Here plaintiff’s counsel provided a justifiable excuse. But to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action plaintiff submitted an affidavit which relied on hearsay. Without affidavits from the sources of the hearsay, a meritorious cause of action was not demonstrated and the complaint should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD” FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A POLICE CHASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS INJURED WHEN HER PATROL CAR WAS STRUCK BY THE PURSUED CAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant police officer, Encarnation, acted with “reckless disregard” during a police chase. The pursued car crashed into plaintiff police officer’s, Corsi’s, patrol car. Defendant Encarnation worked for the Village of Ossining police department. Plaintiff Corsi worked for the Village of Briarcliff Manor police department. Plaintiff sued both Encarnation and the Village of Ossining:

The plaintiff commenced the instant action against, among others, the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c(6) for the reimbursement of all salary, benefits, and expenses paid by the plaintiff to Corsi as a result of injuries she sustained in the line of duty due to the allegedly reckless or negligent conduct of the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion that took place during Encarnacion’s pursuit of Hester and Hester’s eventual crash into Corsi’s vehicle. * * *

… [T]he Village of Ossining and Encarnacion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Encarnacion acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and whether such conduct was a proximate cause of Corsi’s injuries … . In support of their motion, the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Encarnacion, Hester, and Corsi, who collectively testified that on the day at issue, Encarnacion pursued Hester at high speeds through residential and commercial roads and that Hester struck another vehicle and narrowly avoided striking pedestrians during the chase. Village of Briarcliff Manor v Village of Ossining, 2025 NY Slip Op 06214, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the evidence which will raise a question of fact whether a police officer, during an emergency car-chase, acted with “reckless disregard” for the safety of others such that a police officer injured when the pursued car crashed into her patrol car can sue pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c (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