You are here: / Evidence
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF A BUILDING FACADE WHICH CAME LOOSE; PLAINTIFF SUED TWO DEFENDANTS WHO HAD DONE WORK IN THE ROADWAY NEAR THE BUILDING, ALLEGING THE EXCAVATION LOOSENED THE FACADE MATERIAL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a piece of the facade of a brownstone which came loose. Plaintiff sued Keyspan Energy Delivery and Harris Water Main and Sewer Contractors alleging excavation work done by the defendants near the building loosened the facade:

Keyspan established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … by demonstrating, through the submission of … an affidavit of a professional engineer, that its work in the roadway did not create the alleged dangerous condition … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact by submitting … an affidavit from a professional engineer that rebutted the opinion of Keyspan’s expert. …

Harris contracted with the building owners to complete work on a broken pipe connecting the building to the sewer line in the middle of the street. A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140). “[A]n exception to this rule applies where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of contractual duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, such as by creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition” … . The plaintiffs alleged that the vibrations from Harris’s work in the roadway created or exacerbated the alleged dangerous condition on the facade of the subject building. Harris’s submissions, which did not include an expert affidavit from a professional engineer, were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that its work in the roadway did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition … . Payne v Murray, 2021 NY Slip Op 05576, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE LIABILITY OF THE ELEVATOR COMPANY UNDER A NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE THEORY OR A RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY REQUIRED THE DENIAL OF THE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ELEVATOR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND THEN STOPPED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the elevator company (Otis) was liable for injuries allegedly caused by the sudden acceleration and stop of the elevator under a negligent maintenance theory and a res ipsa loquitur theory:

The plaintiff’s expert, Patrick Carrajat, an elevator and escalator consultant, whose affidavit the plaintiff submitted in opposition to Otis’s summary judgment motion, concurred with McPartland’s [defendant’s expert’s] opinion that “the probable cause of the accident was a clipped interlock.” Carrajat disagreed, however, with McPartland’s contention that a clipped interlock was something Otis could not reasonably have been expected to prevent. In Carrajat’s view, proper inspection and maintenance would have revealed either improper adjustment, loosening or shifting, or excessive wear of certain components. Carrajat also explained why he disagreed with McPartland’s opinion that external factors, such as a person making contact with the hallway elevator doors or some sort of debris caught in the elevator’s “door sill,” could have caused the accident. …

The plaintiff also raised a triable issue of fact as to Otis’s liability under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur by submitting proof that the sudden descent and abrupt stop of the elevator was an occurrence that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, that the maintenance and service of the elevator was in the exclusive control of Otis, and that no act or negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of the accident … . Syrnik v Board of Mgrs. of the Leighton House Condominium, 2021 NY Slip Op 05603, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s proof of standing was insufficient because it was based on business records which were not produced:

[The] assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest was the holder of the note when it commenced this action is based upon unproduced business records, and is therefore not probative on the issue of the plaintiff’s standing … .Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. SK Indus., LLC v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 05601, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES SUCH THAT OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY THOSE WITNESSES WERE ADMISSIBLE; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXERCISE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined (1) the People did not demonstrate the defendant was responsible for the intimidation of witnesses by others; and (2), the People should not have been allowed to exercise peremptory challenges to jurors after those jurors had been accepted by the defense:

“The purpose of a Sirois hearing is to determine whether the defendant has procured a witness’s absence or unavailability through his own misconduct, and thereby forfeited any hearsay or Confrontation Clause objections to admitting the witness’s out-of-court statements” … . The People must “present legally sufficient evidence of circumstances and events from which a court may properly infer that the defendant, or those at defendant’s direction or acting with defendant’s knowing acquiescence, threatened the witness” … . “At a Sirois hearing, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has procured the witness’s absence or unavailability” … .

… [T]he People’s evidence did not establish that the defendant controlled the individuals who threatened the witness or that the defendant influenced or persuaded any individual to threaten the witness or his family … . …

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it permitted the People to exercise peremptory challenges to prospective jurors after the defendant and his codefendant exercised peremptory challenges to that same panel of prospective jurors … . This procedure violated “the one persistently protected and enunciated rule of jury selection—that the People make peremptory challenges first, and that they never be permitted to go back and challenge a juror accepted by the defense” … . People v Burgess, 2021 NY Slip Op 05580, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

,

THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON TO APPROACH DEFENDANT AND REQUEST INFORMATION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted in this street stop case. The police officers’ observations of defendant, pursuant to the DeBour criteria, did not justify approaching him and asking whether a bag on the counter in a store belonged to him. There was a gun in the bag:

At the suppression hearing, one of the officers testified that as his vehicle was approaching a red traffic signal at the intersection, the defendant “tensed up” or “stiffened up” and, after making eye contact with the officer through the front windshield, the defendant’s “eyes widened” and the defendant walked into the corner store. The officer continued to observe the defendant through the store’s window, but did not have a full view of him. The officer saw the defendant do “a little pacing back and forth” and then come back outside. When the traffic signal turned green, the officer and his partner pulled over and exited their vehicle. * * *

… [T]he officer who testified at the suppression hearing failed to articulate any reason for approaching the defendant, other than that he appeared nervous and the officer wanted to “see why he went into the store.” This, standing alone, did not provide an objective, credible reason for the officers to approach the defendant and request information … .

… [E]ven assuming, arguendo, that the arresting officers had an objective, credible reason for approaching the defendant, they had no basis for immediately engaging the defendant in a pointed inquiry regarding the ownership and contents of the bag inside the store … . People v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 05579, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

EVEN A UBIQUITOUS “DE MINIMUS” VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW IS VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR A PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOP; HERE THE LICENSE PLATE FRAME OBSCURED “GARDEN STATE” ON THE NEW JERSEY LICENSE PLATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pretextual traffic stop was valid and defendant’s suppression motion should not have been granted on that ground. Apparently the license-plate frame obscured New Jersey’s nickname “Garden State” on the plate, which constitutes a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 402(1)(b):

The trial court’s concerns of permitting police officers to engage in pretextual traffic stops based on observations of trivial or technical traffic violations, which may lead to impermissible profiling, are noteworthy and merit consideration. However, once the court found that the officers reasonably believed that a traffic violation had been committed, this provided the required probable cause to stop the car … , regardless of whether the violation could be deemed de minimis, ubiquitous, unintentional, or caused by a third party such as a car dealer … . “Probable cause to believe that the Vehicle and Traffic Law has been violated provides an objectively reasonable basis for the police to stop a vehicle and . . . there is no exception for infractions that are subjectively characterized as ‘de minimis'” … . People v Dula, 2021 NY Slip Op 05465, First Dept 10-12-21

 

, ,

THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE DESIGN) ACTION AROSE FROM THE ROLLOVER OF A VEHICLE MADE BY DEFENDANT FORD; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND PRONE TO ROLLOVERS WAS CONCLUSORY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s expert’s conclusory affidavit alleging defendant’s vehicle was unsafe did not raise a question of fact in this products liability action stemming from the rollover of a vehicle made by defendant (Ford):

The defective design claim should have been dismissed because plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing that the Ford van was not negligently designed. ‘Where a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is usually for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis” whether the product was reasonably safe … . However, an expert cannot raise an issue of fact to defeat a motion for summary judgment when the opinion consists of only bare conclusory allegations of alleged defects or industry wide knowledge … . Here, plaintiffs’ expert’s assertions that the vehicle at issue was unsafe and prone to rollovers was unsupported by any data or calculations concerning the testing he purportedly performed, testing he described in the most conclusory of terms and general of statements … . Richards v Ford Motor Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05469, First Dept 10-12-21

 

,

THE PAT DOWN SEARCH OF DEFENDANT TRAFFIC OFFENDER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the pat down search of defendant traffic offender was not supported by reasonable suspicion:

… [A] pat down search of a traffic offender is not authorized unless, when the vehicle is stopped, there is reasonable suspicion that the defendant is armed or poses a threat to the officer’s safety … . The requisite reasonable suspicion is simply lacking here; defendant made no evasive moves, he was not aggressive with the officer, he did not reach into his clothing or into dark hiding spots in the car, there were no telltale bulges in his clothes, he made no statements about weapons or other dangerous items, and the officer had no prior knowledge of any defendant-specific concerns … . Contrary to the motion court’s view, “non-compliant and erratic behavior” does not automatically give rise to reasonable suspicion of a threat to officer safety … . Although defendant’s flat affect and partial disrobement during the traffic stop was odd, nothing about his specific odd behavior during the episode gave rise to reasonable suspicion that he was armed or posed a threat to the officer’s safety … . If anything, the officer’s ability to peer unobstructed into defendant’s open pants should have assuaged, rather than heightened, any concerns that defendant was concealing a weapon. The crack cocaine should therefore have been suppressed as the fruit of the unlawful frisk … . People v Santy, 2021 NY Slip Op 05439, Fourth Dept 10-8-21

 

, , , ,

AN AFFIDAVIT WITH A PARTY STATEMENT AND A NON-PARTY AFFIDAVIT WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint in this dog-bite case, determined an affidavit which should have been disclosed because it contained the statement of a party was admissible in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (the Davis affidavit). In addition, the affidavit of a non-party witness should have been considered by the court (the Cheetham affidavit). Even if the discovery demands are read to include the non-party affidavit, the affidavit was privileged as material prepared for litigation and therefore not discoverable. Supreme Court had precluded both affidavits on the ground they had not been disclosed:

… [W]e agree with the court that the affidavit of Davis, insofar as it contained a party statement of defendant, should have been disclosed. CPLR 3101 (e) “enables a party to unconditionally obtain a copy of his or her own statement[,] creating an exception to the rule that material prepared for litigation is ordinarily not discoverable” … . We nevertheless agree with plaintiff that the court abused its discretion in precluding Davis’s affidavit from consideration in opposition to the motion … . Defendant knew of Davis as a person of interest, which is why counsel sought to depose her approximately four months prior to making the motion, and defendant did not seek the assistance of the court to compel Davis’s production … . Inasmuch as plaintiff is not precluded from relying on Davis’s affidavit to oppose summary judgment, Davis is not precluded from testifying at trial … .

We also conclude that the court abused its discretion in precluding the Cheetham affidavit from consideration. Cheetham was listed as a witness in discovery and was deposed. Cheetham is not a party to this action, and his affidavit did not include any statements of a party. Even assuming that Cheetham’s statement was discoverable, we note that defendant’s discovery demands did not include a demand for nonparty witness statements. Assuming further that defendant’s discovery demands could be read to include a request for the statement of a nonparty witness, i.e., Cheetham, we conclude that Cheetham’s statement was conditionally privileged as material prepared in anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2 …). Defendant would be unable to show any substantial need for Cheetham’s statement inasmuch as Cheetham was deposed and therefore provided the substantial equivalent of the material contained in the statement … . Vikki-lynn A. v Zewin, 2021 NY Slip Op 05412, Fourth Dept 10-8-21

 

,

THE PARENTS’ INCOME WAS NOT PROPERLY CALCULATED FOR CHILD-SUPPORT PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parents’ income was not properly calculated for child-support purposes:

The Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) “sets forth a formula for calculating child support by applying a designated statutory percentage, based upon the number of children to be supported, to combined parental income up to the statutory cap that is in effect at the time of the judgment … . …

A calculation of “the basic child support obligation for the children, . . . is done by (1) determining the combined parental income and (2) multiplying the amount of combined parental income up to the statutory cap by the appropriate child support percentage” … . “[A] court has broad discretion to impute income when determining the amount of child support, and is not bound by the parties’ representations of their finances”… . The court may impute income to a party “based on the [party’s] employment history, future earning capacity, educational background” … , “resources available to the party, including ‘money, goods, or services provided by relatives and friends'” … , or “when it is shown that the marital lifestyle was such that, under the circumstances, there [is] a basis for the court to conclude that the [party’s] actual income and financial resources were greater than what he or she reported on his or her tax return[ ]” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly determined the parties’ income by averaging their reported earnings over the preceding four years … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff is employed by his family and his tax returns show substantial downward fluctuations in income, the court should have conducted an analysis as to whether to impute income to the plaintiff. Koutsouras v Mitsos-Koutsouras, 2021 NY Slip Op 05328, Second Dept 10-7-21

 

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