You are here: / Evidence
,

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that comparative negligence is a defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Here plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell on ice and snow in a parking lot which functioned as a passageway and Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Fourth Department found defendant had raised a question of fact about whether it had discharged its duty to keep the passageway clear by salting it and sent the matter back for a trial:

… [G]iven the need for a trial on liability and, if necessary, a new trial on damages, we note our agreement with defendant that the court erred in granting plaintiff’s request to preclude defendant from introducing at the prior damages trial any evidence of plaintiff’s comparative fault with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. The court determined that defendant was precluded from offering evidence of plaintiff’s comparative fault at trial because that issue had been decided when the court granted plaintiff’s motion. Contrary to the court’s determination, however, consideration of comparative fault is still required even “[w]hen a defendant’s liability is established as a matter of law before trial” because the jury must still “determine whether the plaintiff was negligent and whether such negligence was a substantial factor” in causing his or her injuries … , “comparative negligence remains a cognizable affirmative defense to a section 241 (6) cause of action” … . Baum v Javen Constr. Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03678, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE POLICE IN THIS STREET STOP CASE MAY HAVE HAD CAUSE FOR A LEVEL ONE INQUIRY (A CAN IN A PAPER BAG), THEY IMMEDIATELY ENGAGED IN LEVEL TWO INVASIVE QUESTIONING FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE OPEN CONTAINER LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress based upon the illegal street stop should have been granted. The police may have been justified in a level one (DeBour) inquiry based upon an apparent violation of the open-container law (a can in a paper bag), but the police immediately moved to a level two encounter with invasive questioning about the container in the paper bag:

At the first level of a police-civilian encounter, i.e., a request for information, a police officer may approach an individual “when there is some objective credible reason for that interference not necessarily indicative of criminality” (De Bour, 40 NY2d at 223), and “[t]he request may ‘involve[] basic, nonthreatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination’ ” … .”The next degree, the common-law right to inquire, is activated by a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and permits a somewhat greater intrusion in that a [police officer] is entitled to interfere with a citizen to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information, but short of a forcible seizure” (De Bour, 40 NY2d at 223).

Here, even assuming, arguendo, that the officers possessed a level one right to approach defendant and his companion … the officers nonetheless immediately “engaged in a level two intrusion, i.e., ‘a more pointed inquiry into [the] activities [of defendant and his companion]’ . . . , by asking ‘invasive question[s] focusing on the possible criminality of the subject’ ” … . Notably, the officers did not see defendant or his companion drinking from whatever item was in the paper bag, and there were no other attendant circumstances indicative of criminal behavior that would warrant the more pointed inquiry at the outset … . People v Wright, 2021 NY Slip Op 03675, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ATTEMPTED STRANGULATION SECOND DEGREE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ON THAT CHARGE ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of strangulation second degree, determined the request to instruct the jury to consider the lesser included offense of attempted strangulation second degree should have been granted. There was a reasonable view of the evidence which would have allowed the jury to find the victim did not suffer physical injury:

… [T]he disputed issue is whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence supporting a determination of guilt on the lesser count but not the higher count. Strangulation in the second degree requires proof that the victim suffered stupor, loss of consciousness, or physical injury or impairment (Penal Law § 121.12). Inasmuch as there was no evidence that the complainant suffered stupor or loss of consciousness, defendant’s guilt of this offense rested entirely on the evidence that the complainant sustained a physical injury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant … , we conclude that a reasonable view of the evidence would have supported a determination that the complainant did not sustain a physical injury and thus that defendant was guilty of only the lesser offense and not the greater … . People v Swift, 2021 NY Slip Op 03785, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304:

Although the RPAPL 1304 notices were allegedly mailed from New York by the same law firm that filed the summary judgment motion on behalf of the plaintiff, no one from that law firm provided an affidavit of mailing, or any other evidentiary proof in admissible form to establish that the mailing was properly completed. Instead, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jennifer Jeudy, a contract management coordinator based in Palm Beach County, Florida, who averred, without further explanation, that the RPAPL 1304 notices “were mailed by first-class and certified mail, having been placed in an official depository under the exclusive case [sic] and custody of the United States Post Office in postage-paid properly addressed envelopes.” Since the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof of the actual mailing, and Jeudy did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the plaintiff’s New York law firm, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Malik, 2021 NY Slip Op 03596, Second Dept 6-9-21

Similar issues and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Ehrlich, 2021 NY Slip Op 03627, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, ,

IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT IN A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, CREDIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the motion to dismiss the family offense petition for failure to make out a prima facie case should not have been granted, noting that the credibility of the evidence is not a factor to be considered at that stage:

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832 … ). “‘In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case, the evidence must be accepted as true and given the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be drawn therefrom . . . The question of credibility is irrelevant, and should not be considered'” ). Here, the Family Court failed to properly apply this standard. Viewing the petitioner’s evidence in the light most favorable to her, and accepting the evidence as true, it established a prima facie case … . Matter of Prince v Ford, 2021 NY Slip Op 03591, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO SUE UNDER AN INSTALLMENT CONTRACT ALLEGEDLY ASSIGNED TO HIM; THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF RELIED DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been granted summary judgment on an installment contract for the purchase of a car which plaintiff alleged was assigned to him. Plaintiff did not demonstrate the documents he relied on for standing fit the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

“A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” … . As a general rule, “the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents as business records” … . “However, such records may be admitted into evidence if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, or establish that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records and routinely relied upon by the recipient in its own business” … .

Here, Dunn [plaintiff’s record manager] failed to attest to her personal knowledge of the business practices of either Baron Auto City, Inc., [the dealer which sold the car] or the entity to which Baron Auto City, Inc., allegedly assigned the installment contract. She also failed to allege that either the installment contract or the initial assignment of the installment contract to the third party were incorporated into the plaintiff’s records and routinely relied upon by the plaintiff in its business. Accordingly, under the circumstances, Dunn’s affidavit was insufficient to lay a proper foundation for either the installment contract or the initial assignment of the installment contract to the third party … . Autovest, LLC v Cassamajor, 2021 NY Slip Op 03570, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS UNKNOWN; IN ADDITION, THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because the cause of the fall was unknown. Plaintiff’s decedent was found dead at the bottom of the stairs

[Defendants] moved … for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … contending … that the plaintiffs did not know what caused the incident to occur and that it would be speculative to assume that any defect in the staircase caused the decedent to fall. … The plaintiffs opposed the motion, contending … that the Noseworthy doctrine applied and that circumstantial evidence showed that the decedent fell because the staircase connecting the first floor to the basement of the restaurant/bar was in a defective condition ,,, ,  …

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them by demonstrating that the plaintiffs could not identify what caused the decedent to fall … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Noseworthy doctrine does not apply to the circumstances of this case since the defendants’ knowledge as to the cause of the decedent’s accident is no greater than that of the plaintiffs … . Even accepting the alleged defects identified in the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the decedent’s fall was proximately caused by those allegedly unsafe conditions … . Atehortua v Jaramillo, 2021 NY Slip Op 03569, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, ,

A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT WARRANT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s imposition of an upward departure from the SORA risk assessment guidelines, explained that the existence of a family relationship with the victim, standing alone, does not warrant an upward departure:

People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, as we held in People v Rodriguez (_____ AD3d _____, 2021 NY Slip Op 03475 [2d Dept]), the existence of a familial relationship between the offender and the victim, standing alone, does not constitute an aggravating factor for purposes of granting an upward departure. That relationship has already been taken into account by the Guidelines … , in which the board deliberately excluded familial relationships from the assessment of points on the RAI [risk assessment instrument] and expressly determined that intrafamilial offenders do not pose a comparatively higher risk of recidivism or danger to the community … . People v Velasquez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03625, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, ,

THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court’s upward departure from the SORA guidelines, determined the bases for the departure had been taken into account by the guidelines:

County Court lacked the discretion to upwardly depart from the presumptive risk assessment level because the People failed, as a matter of law, to identify an aggravating factor that was not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines. In seeking an upward departure from the presumptive risk assessment level established at the hearing, the People relied upon the defendant’s prior conviction of public lewdness and indications in the record suggesting that he had not accepted responsibility for his sexual misconduct. The defendant’s prior conviction of public lewdness constituted a misdemeanor sex crime, which is already accounted for under risk factor 9 of the Guidelines … . Similarly, an offender’s lack of acceptance of responsibility is accounted for under risk factor 12 … . ​People v Mott, 2021 NY Slip Op 03621, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF ON RISK FACTORS 2 AND 4, REQUIRING A 45 POINT REDUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s risk assessment by 45 points, without explaining the facts, determined the People did not submit sufficient evidence on two risk factors:

Supreme Court improperly assessed 25 points under risk factor 2 (sexual contact with victim) and 20 points under risk factor 4 (continuing course of sexual misconduct), as the People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence … that the defendant engaged in sexual contact with the victims or that, under the theory of accessorial liability, he shared the intent of the victims’ clients in engaging in sexual contact … . People v Canady, 2021 NY Slip Op 03618, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

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