You are here: / Evidence
,

THE DRY BUT ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY FLOOR WAS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged slipped on a dry but slippery floor:

Plaintiff testified that he slipped while working in the kitchen of a hotel, due to slippery flooring material that had just been installed. He stated that the floor was dry, but the flooring did not “grip,” and the layers were not properly installed. …

Absent competent evidence of a defect in the surface or some deviation from an applicable industry standard, liability is not imposed for a slippery floor … . Here, all of the experts stated that the flooring was at least in the “acceptable” range for slip resistance using industry standards. Moreover, plaintiff failed to present any evidence raising an issue of fact concerning improper installation or defective materials. Evidence of subsequent repairs or remediation is not admissible, unless there is an issue of control or an alleged defect in manufacture, not present here, and does not create an issue of fact as to prior negligence … . Arias v Stonhard, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06944, First Dept 11-24-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not raise a question of fact:

… [P]laintiff alleges that due to defendants’ negligence in diagnosing a skull fracture during an emergency room visit …, he sustained permanent and disabling neurological damage. …

Defendants’ expert opined that defendants did not depart from good and accepted practice by not ordering a CT head scan based on plaintiff’s initial clinical presentation in the emergency room. Defendants’ expert opined that plaintiff did not meet any of the criteria of the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) used in the emergency room setting to determine which head injuries warrant CT imaging.  [P]laintiff did not exhibit any neurological deficits, such as loss of consciousness, vomiting, headaches, or dizziness, and he was alert and mobile.

In opposition, plaintiff submitted a conclusory affirmation that failed to specifically address the criteria relied upon by defendants’ expert in opining that plaintiff’s presentation did not warrant further investigation of a possible skull fracture.

Rather, without support from the medical record, plaintiff’s expert opined that the injury occurred in the pterion region of the skull, and, moreover, defendants negligently failed to elicit the “mechanism” of injury, i.e., that plaintiff was stabbed, which, when taken together with the location of the wound, would have indicated a likelihood that plaintiff had sustained a skull fracture. Plaintiff’s expert further opined, without elaboration, that plaintiff must have had evidence of injury during his initial ER visit since he was diagnosed with a days-old skull fracture less than a week later, and therefore defendants’ examination of him was cursory and deficient. These opinions, which rely on hindsight and are both speculative and conclusory, are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Cruz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06946, First Dept 11-24-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AFTER TOUCHING A LIVE ELECTRIC WIRE; FAILURE TO TURN OFF THE ELECTRICITY MAY BE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1 cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold installing an exit sign when he touched a live wire and fell. Failure to turn off the electricity was at most comparative negligence which does not defeat the action:

The undisputed evidence in the record shows that plaintiff was attempting to install an exit sign in a building under construction while standing about 12 feet above the floor on a scaffold platform, without using any safety harness or safety lines, when he touched a live wire to a component of the sign, causing him to receive an electrical shock and then fall off the scaffold and onto the floor. Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his accident was proximately caused by the inadequacy of the safety devices he was using or the absence of other safety devices necessary to protect him from the risks posed by working at a significant elevation above the floor … .

Defendants did not raise issues of fact by pointing to evidence that plaintiff checked the scaffold before using it and did not find it to be defective, and that the scaffold had safety railings on all four sides, or by asserting that no other devices such as a safety harness or safety line would have prevented his fall … .

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether “plaintiff knew that he was supposed to use a harness” or safety line, “or that he disregarded specific instructions to do so” … . …

Plaintiff’s failure to turn off the power supply before working with a live wire was at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Goundan v Pav-Lak Contr. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06950, First Dept 11-24-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM AN UNGUARDED TOP BUNK AT A TEMPORARY SHELTER AND WAS RENDERED A QUADRIPLEGIC; THE SHELTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE SHELTER HAD INSTALLED GUARDRAILS ON OTHER TOP BUNKS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against defendant temporary housing shelter (CAFLF) should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent (Philips) was rendered a quadriplegic and later died after falling from an unguarded top bunk. The shelter’s maintenance director testified it was dangerous for anyone to sleep in an unguarded top bunk and that the shelter had installed guardrails on other top bunks:

Summary judgment should be denied to CAFLF. An unguarded top bunk is not an inherently dangerous instrumentality, and a property owner or manager has no duty to install guardrails absent notice that an unguarded top bunk presents a dangerous condition. However, Ida Morris, Philip’s late wife, testified that she and Philip had complained to a CAFLF social worker about the lack of guardrails before Philip’s accident. CAFLF’s maintenance director testified that he and his staff knew it was dangerous for anyone to sleep in an unguarded top bunk and that they installed guardrails on top bunks that were going to be slept in. While the breach of an internal policy that transcends the duty of reasonable care cannot be considered evidence of negligence … , this testimony raises an issue of fact as to whether CAFLF knew or should have known that the unguarded top bunk from which Philip fell was dangerous and, if so, whether CAFLF breached its duty to exercise reasonable care by failing to install a guardrail on the top bunk before Philip’s accident. Slaughter v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06972, First Dept 11-24-20

 

, ,

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT AND PLANNING OF THE MURDER OF DEFENDANT’S WIFE AND MOTHER-IN-LAW DID NOT CONSTITUTE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a three-judge dissent, determined the evidence of attempted first and second degree murder was legally insufficient. Defendant’s conversations and planning with a feigned confederate did not constitute an “actual step” toward killing his wife and mother-in-law:

… [T]he only conduct to be considered is defendant’s own acts because his purported accomplice [MS], who was working with the authorities, did not take any steps toward furthering the planned murders other than listening to defendant’s scheme. MS did not, for example, acquire the instrumentality for the crimes (such as drugs or poison), verify the existence of the keys and obtain them from the stated location, or stake out the address supplied by defendant to make sure that the wife and mother-in-law were present at the location specified. Nevertheless, the People, mostly by parsing defendant’s communications with MS, argue that defendant engaged in sufficient conduct by: (1) promising to provide a house to MS; (2) giving MS the purported address of the targets; (3) instructing MS when to carry out the murders; (4) providing MS with a hand-drawn map of the location of the third party’s house, where MS was to drop off the children after the murders; (5) handing MS a detailed plan of how to carry out the murders; (6) telling MS the location of the keys to the house; (7) calling MS’s girlfriend to arrange for MS to visit the jail; (8) writing a fake suicide note; (9) showing MS the suicide note; and (10) creating a prearranged code to discuss the postmortem over the recorded jail phone.

Not only are these acts “preparatory in a dictionary sense” … , they are also limited to the planning stages of committing the offense: they specify the who, what, where, when, and how of defendant’s murder plans. Notably absent are any acts that can be deemed to bring the crimes dangerously close to completion. People v Lendof-Gonzalez, 2020 NY Slip Op 06940, CtApp 11-24-20

 

, ,

A WHEEL CAME OFF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK CAUSING A FREAK ACCIDENT INVOLVING TWO OTHER VEHICLES RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A DRIVER; THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AT MOST, DEFENDANT FAILED TO PERCEIVE THE RISK CREATED BY A NOISY WHEEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction, determined the evidence was against the weight of the evidence. Apparently, a wheel came off defendant’s truck, another truck hit the wheel and overturned on a car, killing the driver:

The testimony at trial established that defendant came into possession of the pickup truck several weeks before the accident, but that its last valid inspection was three years before the accident. Although the People established that the pickup truck had a forged inspection sticker, there was no evidence that defendant knew it was forged. Several witnesses testified that, in the three days preceding the accident, the pickup truck was making loud grinding noises and that, either the day before the accident or the day of the accident, defendant asked a person with mechanical experience what that person thought might be the issue. That person opined that the noise was likely being caused by a wheel or the brakes.

An inspection of the driver’s side wheel and truck after the accident established some significant problems with the wheel, and witnesses testified that the existence of problems would have been noticeable and would have created issues with steering. The testimony also established, however, that the severity of the problems could not have been known to the operator unless the wheel was removed from the truck. * * *

At most, the evidence established that defendant failed to perceive a risk, which does establish criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Pinnock, 2020 NY Slip Op 06884, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE THE DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court on the People’s appeal, determined the indictment should not have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds because the People demonstrated the exercise of due diligence in attempting to locate the absent defendant:

In computing the time within which the People must be ready for trial, the court must exclude, inter alia, the period of delay resulting from defendant’s absence (see CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]). “A defendant must be considered absent whenever his location is unknown and he is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution, or his location cannot be determined by due diligence” (id.). …

… [W]e conclude that the People established that they exercised due diligence in attempting to locate defendant during the time period at issue at the hearing. Law enforcement officers routinely checked computer databases, social media outlets, criminal history reports and information from other government agencies to attempt to identify locations where defendant might be located. In addition, officers investigated all of the addresses associated with defendant to varying degrees, speaking with maintenance workers, neighbors, tenants, and defendant’s mother. In attempting to conduct subsequent interviews with defendant’s mother, law enforcement officers learned that she no longer resided at the same address. Law enforcement officers also contacted and spoke with all of defendant’s known employers. Although law enforcement officers did not conduct a full investigation of one address that appeared on one credit agency report, one of the officers testified at the hearing that credit reports were not reliable because “anyone . . . could go apply for a credit card online today and write [any address] on the application.” Without any corroboration of defendant’s affiliation with that address, the officer did not investigate beyond driving to the address and verifying that it was a commercial and retail building. Ultimately … the officers’ periodic database searches yielded a potential address in Georgia.

“[N]otwithstanding the fact that greater efforts could have been undertaken”… , we conclude that the People established that they exercised the requisite due diligence in attempting to locate defendant during the time period at issue … . People v Anderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 06881, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CLAIMED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE COULDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE FLOOR MAT HAD ROLLED UP UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED THE DEPOSITION AS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEPOSITION WAS HEARSAY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE USUAL HEARSAY RULES DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEPOSITION WAS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident was properly granted. The defendant, in his deposition, claimed he was unable to stop at the red light because the floor mat had rolled up under the brake pedal. The plaintiff submitted defendant’s deposition testimony as part of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The majority considered defendant’s testimony hearsay and therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The dissenters argued the hearsay rule did not apply because plaintiff submitted the deposition and thereby raised triable issues of fact, or, in the alternative, waived any objection to the hearsay:

Plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendant was negligent in his operation of the vehicle inasmuch as defendant failed to stop at a red light … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, he failed to raise an issue of fact whether the emergency doctrine applies here … . The emergency doctrine provides that, “when [a driver] is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the [driver] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he or she] must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the [driver] may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . However, “[t]he emergency doctrine is only applicable when a party is confronted by [a] sudden, unforeseeable occurrence not of their own making” … . Stated differently, “it is settled law that the emergency doctrine has no application where . . . the party seeking to invoke it has created or contributed to the emergency” … . Further, although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is not by itself sufficient to defeat such a motion … . Here, defendant testified at his deposition that, at the time of the accident, he was not sure why he could not apply his brakes. He learned after the accident from a body shop mechanic that “[t]he floor pad was rolled up underneath the brake pedal.” He also testified that the floor mat sliding underneath his brakes was “the only reason [he could] think of” for his inability to brake. In view of that deposition testimony, we conclude that defendant’s reliance on the emergency doctrine was based solely on hearsay and speculation and thus did not raise a triable issue of fact whether that doctrine applies. The record includes no affidavit or deposition testimony from defendant’s mechanic. Watson v Peschel, 2020 NY Slip Op 06880, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY TO ALLOW HIS RELOCATION TO NORTH CAROLINA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition to modify custody to allow his relocation to North Carolina should not have been granted:

In its decision, the court considered the relevant Tropea factors but erred in applying those factors to the facts and circumstances in the case at bar. Contrary to the court’s determination, the father “failed to establish that the child’s life would be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the proposed relocation” … . While the father established that he will enjoy greater economic job opportunities in North Carolina, those nominal financial gains will be negated by the greater cost of living in the area of North Carolina where he will be relocating. Additionally, as noted by the court, the father had unrealistic goals for housing in North Carolina. Notably, the father testified that he was presently paying monthly rent of $900 for a home in Olean, New York, but wanted to purchase a home in North Carolina for between $200,000 and $250,000. He acknowledged that he could not afford a home within that price range on his own and would need the financial assistance of family, his employer, and his fiancée. There is no evidence in the record, however, that anyone had committed to providing that needed assistance or had the financial ability to do so. The father also failed to establish that the child would receive a better education in North Carolina inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record comparing the schools in North Carolina to those in Olean, New York … . Furthermore, the father admitted that he had “zero” family living in North Carolina. On the other hand, the father’s mother currently lives in Olean, New York, and the father’s aunt lives nearby in Wellsville, New York. The maternal grandmother, great-grandmother and great-grandfather all live in Olean, New York. The father therefore failed to establish that he and the child would receive similar support residing in North Carolina … . In our view, the only factor that fully supported the father’s request for relocation was a “fresh start,” away from Olean, New York, where he and the mother struggled with an opiate addiction. That factor, standing alone, is insufficient to warrant relocation … . Gasdik v Winiarz, 2020 NY Slip Op 06918, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY TO ALLOW RELOCATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody to accommodate relocation should not have been dismissed without holding a hearing:

… [T]he mother alleged that she had specific employment advancement opportunities at her job in Monroe County, and “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” … . In addition, the mother alleged that the relocation would enhance the child’s extracurricular activities, a factor that may support a relocation … . In addition, the Attorney for the Child indicated that the child favored the relocation, another factor that may support a relocation petition … . Consequently, the petition sufficiently alleged that the relocation would be in the child’s best interests … , and the court erred in dismissing it on the ground that it did not. Finally, to the extent that the decision indicates that the court dismissed the petition on the ground that the mother failed to allege a sufficient change in circumstances, that was error … . Matter of Betts v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 06907, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

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