You are here: / Evidence
,

CLAIMANT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE A FLYER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHICH INDICATED IT WAS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR STATE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO WHETHER CLAIMANT WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTED HER EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant should have been allowed to present evidence that her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not willful. Based on a flyer put out by the Department of Labor, claimant allegedly believed that she needed to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment insurance:

At the hearing, claimant requested to admit over 50 pages of documentation into the record. Included in these documents is a flyer, which claimant contends was on the Department of Labor’s website and led her to believe that, despite not being eligible for state unemployment benefits, she may have been entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance under federal legislation that was put in place due to the coronavirus pandemic. Claimant argues that she understood this flyer to mean that she was required to apply for state unemployment benefits to obtain relief under the federal legislation. A fair interpretation of the flyer supports that contention. Also included in these documents is evidence of claimant’s many attempts to contact the Department of Labor to determine whether she was, in fact, entitled to the benefits that she was receiving. As these documents bear directly on the issue of determining whether claimant’s misrepresentation was willful, as well as on claimant’s credibility, not allowing them into evidence denied her “a sufficient opportunity to present proof in support of her claim” and did, in fact, deprive her of a fair hearing … . Matter of Nottage (Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02476, Third Dept 4-14-22

Practice Point: Here a flyer put out by the Department of Labor indicated it was necessary to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment benefits. Claimant sought to introduce the flyer in evidence to show her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not “willful.” The evidence should have been considered by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

 

,

MOTHER’S MARIJUANA USE DURING PREGNANCY AND THE FACT THAT MOTHER AND CHILD TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD’S BIRTH WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE NEGLECT; NEW YORK HAS LEGALIZED MARIJUANA USE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s marijuana use during pregnancy, and the fact that mother and the child tested positive for marijuana at the time of birth, were insufficient to demonstrate neglect:

… [T]he evidence that the mother smoked marijuana while pregnant with her youngest daughter, and that the mother and child both tested positive for marijuana at the time of the birth, is insufficient, in and of itself, to sustain a finding that the child was physically, mentally or emotionally impaired, or was in imminent danger of being impaired … . Here, as acknowledged by the agency, there was no evidence that the mother’s marijuana use impacted her judgment or behavior, or that the child was impaired or placed in imminent risk of impairment by the mother’s drug use … . Furthermore, the finding of neglect based solely on use of marijuana, without a finding of actual or imminent impairment of the child’s physical or emotional condition, is inconsistent with this State’s public policy legalizing marijuana, as reflected in the recent amendment to the Family Court Act (Family Court Act § 1046[a][iii] …). Matter of Saaphire A.W. (Lakesha B.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02382, First Dept 4-12-22

Practice Point: Because marijuana use has been legalized, proof mother smoked marijuana and mother and child tested positive for marijuana at the time of birth was not enough to demonstrate neglect. There must be proof, for example, that mother’s judgment was affected or the child was harmed in some way.

 

,

IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, HERE THE INSTALLATION OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF A STAIRWELL WHICH ALLEGEDLY BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged a composite material used at the top of a staircase was inappropriate for that purpose because the surface became slippery when wet from rain. The Second Department found that the defendants did not demonstrate they did not have constructive knowledge of the condition, mainly because the evidence relied upon was inadmissible hearsay. But the Second Department also noted the plaintiff must show more than the creation of a dangerous condition to hold the defendants liable. It must also be shown the defendants knew or should have known of the danger:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants may not be held liable merely because they created the allegedly dangerous condition by directing the installation of the composite decking material on the landing. “[A]bsent a statute imposing strict liability, a defendant may not be held liable for creating a dangerous or defective condition upon property unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge of the danger created” … . San Antonio v 340 Ridge Tenants Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02298, Second Dept 4-6-22

Practice Point: It may be an obvious point, but in order to hold a property owner liable for creating a dangerous condition, the plaintiff must not only show that the defendant created the condition, but also that the defendant was aware of the danger. In this case the defendant installed a composite flooring at the top of a stairwell which allegedly became slippery when wet. Just proving the defendant installed the floor and that the floor became slippery when wet would not be enough.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to the records of the driver’s guilty plea to an unclassified misdemeanor (under the NYC Administrative Code), which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right of way: The unclassified misdemeanor is not covered by the sealing statute, Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.55 which seals records of Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions:

… [Defendant driver] was arrested, charged, and subsequently pled guilty to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-190(b), an unclassified misdemeanor, and to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), a traffic violation, for failing to yield to plaintiff’s decedent and causing him injury. Plaintiff … now seeks the records pertaining to [the driver’s] unclassified misdemeanor. The City defendants argue that these records are not discoverable because they overlap with [the driver’s] traffic infraction records, which are sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55.

Under CPL 160.55, all records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution of an individual convicted of a traffic infraction or violation, following a criminal action or proceeding, shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency … . Plaintiff is entitled to [the driver’s] records pertaining to his unclassified misdemeanor, as the records are not subject to CPL 160.55, and it does not appear that they were sealed … . To the extent these records contain references or information related solely to [the driver’s] sealed traffic violation case, the City must redact or remove it from its production. Lu-Wong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02226, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: Although the records of traffic infractions are sealed under CPL 160.55, the records of a violation of the NYC Administrative Code, which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right-of-way, are not subject to that sealing statute. Therefore the plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to those records.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY; HERE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT, EVEN THOUGH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the trial judge properly allowed plaintiff to call her treating physician to rebut the testimony of defendants’ expert, even though the doctor’s testimony could have been presented in her case-in-chief:

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff to call her treating radiologist as a rebuttal witness … . While plaintiff’s radiologist’s testimony could have been offered as part of her case-in-chief, and her failure to offer the testimony at that time deprived her of the right to make use of it as affirmative evidence, she still had the right to offer the testimony in order “to impeach or discredit” the testimony of defendants’ expert radiologist … . Reinoso v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02242, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: In a civil case, a judge has the discretion to allow a plaintiff to present rebuttal evidence which could have been presented in the case-in-chief.

 

,

THE “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE GRANDPARENTS APPLIED ONLY TO FATHER AND NOT AT ALL TO MOTHER; FOR THAT REASON THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the grandparents’ petition for custody of the child should not have been granted. Father has a criminal history and has been incarcerated. He was arrested with the child and drug paraphernalia in his car, where he was found asleep. Mother has no criminal history and no drug problems. The “special circumstances” which may have supported granting custody to the grandparents related only to father, not al all to mother. Therefore the grandparents’ petition should have been denied:

The record reflects that the child was not subject to surrender, abandonment or persistent neglect nor is the mother unfit. Although the father was the subject of an indicated report relative to the incident when he fell asleep in his vehicle with drug paraphernalia near the child, a finding of neglect was not indicated as to the mother. Moreover, this was an isolated incident and not part of a pattern of persistent neglect. Although there was evidence that the father has a history of drug abuse and criminal convictions, the mother has neither. There was no evidence that the child was at risk of being harmed while in the mother’s care; instead, the record demonstrates that the mother provided appropriate shelter, clothing, food and medical attention to the child. Additionally, the mother did not allow the father to have contact with the child in accordance with Family Court’s orders. As Family Court found that the grandparents did not meet their burden on extraordinary circumstances as to the mother, the court erred in engaging in a best interests analysis and, instead, the custody petition should have been dismissed … . Matter of Anne MM. v Vasiliki NN, 2022 NY Slip Op 02161, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here “special circumstances” which may have supported granting the grandparents’ petition for custody of the child with respect to father, did not apply at all to mother. Family Court should not have proceeded with a “best interests” analysis and should have denied the petition.

 

 

, ,

A JAIL PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE MIGHT PLEAD GUILTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE; THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION REFERENCE TO THE PORTION OF THE PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE NEEDED A “PAID LAWYER” WAS AN IMPROPER USE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AGAINST THE DEFENDANT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a jail phone call in which defendant said he might plead guilty was inadmissible. In addition the prosecutor’s comment on summation that defendant said (in that jail phone call) he needed a “paid lawyer” was an improper reference to defendant’s right to counsel:

[Defendant] was deprived of a fair trial based upon the admission of a jail phone call wherein he stated that he might as well “cop out to . . . the five years or whatever.” The People portrayed this evidence as relevant to show defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Even if relevant, evidence of consciousness of guilt is generally considered weak … . That said, defendant’s statement that he contemplated taking a plea had little probative value but had a prejudicial effect on him. In this regard, “[s]ince it is widely assumed that only the guilty would consider entering a guilty plea, the knowledge that defendant wanted to plead guilty would make it difficult for the jury to accept the presumption of innocence and to evaluate the evidence fairly” … .

We also agree with defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s comment on summation that defendant, in the jail phone call, stated that “[h]e need[ed] to get a paid lawyer to see if he can get lesser time.” The prosecutor argued to the jury that this statement went to defendant’s consciousness of guilt. A prosecutor, however, cannot use a defendant’s invocation of his or her constitutional right to counsel against such defendant … . It follows that any commentary to this effect is improper. Accordingly, defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s summation … . People v Roberts, 2022 NY Slip Op 02157, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Defendant, in a jail phone call, said he might plead guilty and he needed a “paid lawyer.” The “might plead guilty” statement should not have been admitted because it was highly prejudicial but had little probative value. The prosecutor’s reference in summation to the “need a paid lawyer” statement improperly used defendant’s right to counsel against him. These were deemed reversible errors.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT ADDRESS THE OPINION OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint in this medical malpractice case, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiffs’ expert did not address the defendants’ expert’s opinion. The defense expert averred plaintiff’s problems were caused by cancer. Plaintiffs’ expert took the position plaintiff never had cancer, a position contradicted by the record:

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment through their expert, who averred that defendants’ treatment of plaintiff was within the standard of care and any difficulties with the treatment were caused by plaintiff’s underlying cancer. Plaintiffs’ expert failed to address that opinion, and thus failed to rebut defendants’ showing of entitlement to summary judgment … . Instead, the expert took the position that plaintiff never had cancer, a fact contradicted by the record … .. While plaintiff’s cancer had an unusual presentation, and pathologists initially disagreed as to whether she had an invasive jaw cancer, she was ultimately successfully treated by oncologists with surgery, radiation, and gene therapy. Plaintiffs’ expert entirely ignored plaintiff’s treatment from 2016 to 2017 for a rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma, as well as her 2018 treatment for a reoccurrence … . Given those omissions, plaintiffs did not rebut defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary dismissal of the negligence and medical malpractice claims against them…. . Mulroe v New York-Presbyt. Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02204, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: If the defendants’ expert in a med mal case makes a prima facie showing defendants’ treatment was within the standard of care and the plaintiffs’ expert does not address that opinion, defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted. Med mal cases, at the summary judgment stage, turn on the experts’ affidavits. Every argument raised by the movant’s expert must be addressed by the plaintiff’s expert to raise a question of fact.

,

THE HOSPITAL FROM WHICH LAPTOPS WERE STOLEN WAS NOT A “DWELLING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BURGLARY STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing two of defendant’s burglary convictions, determined the hospital from which laptops were stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes:

Defendant’s convictions under counts three and four of the indictment, regarding the 2017 thefts of laptop computers from the Physicians & Surgeons Building at Columbia University Medical Center, were not supported by legally sufficient evidence of the “dwelling” element of burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.00[3]). There was no evidence that patients stayed overnight in this building. The People’s reliance on Penal Law § 140.00(2) is unavailing, because no “unit” within the building is a dwelling. Although the building was part of a large campus covering several blocks, there was insufficient evidence that this building provided defendant with ready access via connecting elevators, stairwells, or corridors to other buildings, where hospital patients stayed overnight and which was, in any event, at a considerable distance … . People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02205, First Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: Here a hospital from which laptops had been stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes.

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEND DEFENDANT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was entitled to summary judgment because the bank did not send the notice of default in a separate envelope as required by RPAPL 1304:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304(2) states that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice.”

The defendant established that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304, on the ground that additional material was sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Hinds, 2022 NY Slip Op 02150, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here the borrower’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint was granted because the bank sent the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 in an envelope along with other materials, violating the “separate envelope” rule.

 

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