You are here: / Evidence
,

AN EYEWITNESS TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL TESTIFIED PLAINTIFF TOLD HER SHE TRIPPED OVER A MUDSILL BECAUSE OF DIM LIGHTING; PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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. Although plaintiff IHayward) testified she did not know why she tripped on a mudsill, an eyewitness (Espy) testified plaintiff told her she tripped because of dim lighting. Plaintiff’s statement was deemed admissible as an excited utterance. The court noted that defendants had demonstrated the mudsill was open and obvious and therefore did not need to demonstrate a lack of notice:

… [T]he defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the wooden mudsill that caused Hayward to fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention on appeal, having made that showing, the defendants were not required to make a prima facie showing that they lacked notice of the alleged defect. In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact, relying on, inter alia, Hayward’s testimony at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and the affidavit of an alleged eyewitness, Janice Espy. During the 50-h hearing, Hayward testified that the area underneath the sidewalk shed was dim and that some of the lighting fixtures were missing light bulbs. However, Hayward testified that she was able to see where she was going. When she was asked why she tripped on the mudsill, Hayward stated that she did not understand the question and that she did not know why she tripped on the wooden mudsill. Espy averred that when she saw Hayward fall, she went to assist her. Hayward told Espy that she tripped on the mudsill and that she did not see it before she fell because the lighting conditions under the sidewalk shed were poor. Hayward’s statement to Espy was admissible as an excited utterance because it was made under the stress of excitement caused by her fall … . Under the circumstances, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the accident site was adequately illuminated and whether the mudsill was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Hayward v Zoria Hous., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05892, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

, , ,

RES IPSA LOQUITUR NEEDN’T BE ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM OR THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY OF LIABILITY, IT IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE; NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION CAN BE INFERRED UNDER THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff properly raised res ipsa loquitur in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment even though the notice of claim and the complaint did not allege it. Res ipsa loquitur is not a theory of liability, it is a rule of evidence:

Plaintiff investigated a hissing sound coming from the electrical circuit box in her apartment and as she drew close to the circuit box, it suddenly burst into flame, burning her right arm. Plaintiff may raise res ipsa loquitur in opposition to defendant’s motion without having alleged the doctrine in her notice of claim or complaint, as it is not a separate theory of liability, but rather, an evidentiary rule that involves “‘a common sense application of the probative value of circumstantial evidence'” … . Plaintiff’s evidence raised triable issues as to application of the doctrine, as it showed that she had resided in the apartment for nearly 19 years, she would contact defendant’s employees to remedy any issues with the circuit box, and defendant’s employees handled the inspection, maintenance, and repair of the circuit box … . To the extent defendant argues its lack of notice of the alleged dangerous condition, a triable issue of fact exists here regarding the applicability of the res ipsa doctrine, and proof of notice of a dangerous condition may be inferred under the doctrine … . Townsend v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 05874, First Dept 10-20-20

 

, ,

NYC POLICE OFFICERS IN THE TIER 3 RETIREMENT SYSTEM ARE ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR PERIODS OF UNPAID CHILDCARE LEAVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent, determined that retiring police officers are entitled to credit for the unpaid leave for child care. The appeal raised a question of statutory interpretation. The Court of Appeals found that the relevant provision of the NYC Administrative Code was not preempted by the Retirement and Social Security Law (RSSL):

The Appellate Division order should be reversed and Supreme Court’s judgment declaring that defendants violated the second subdivision (h) of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-218 by excluding police officers in tier 3 of the state retirement system from the retirement benefits conferred by that subdivision reinstated. Applying longstanding, basic rules of statutory interpretation, we conclude that the relevant part of Administrative Code § 13-218 renders officers of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) who are members of the tier 3 retirement system eligible for credit for certain periods of unpaid childcare leave, and that the grant of such benefits for those officers is consistent with the Retirement and Social Security Law (RSSL). Lynch v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05841, Ct App 10-20-20

 

,

REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED UPON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been relied upon in this foreclosure action because the report was based on hearsay:

The referee relied on an affidavit sworn to October 2, 2018 by an assistant vice president of plaintiff’s loan servicer, who asserted that, according to the books and records of plaintiff pertaining to defendant’s loan and payment history, defendant had been in default since March 1, 2009, and owed plaintiff the amount stated. However, because the books and records themselves were not submitted to the court, the affiant’s assertions are inadmissible hearsay … . Nor did the affiant lay a foundation for the introduction of the books and records as a business record (see CPLR 4518[a]). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kirschenbaum, 2020 NY Slip Op 05849, First Dept 10-20-20

 

,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON THE CONDITION OF THE HOME (FIRST DEPT),

The First Department, in affirming neglect findings based upon leaving the children unattended in a car and in the bathtub, determined that the evidence did not support the neglect finding based upon the condition of the home:

The only evidence that respondents failed to maintain the home in a sanitary condition was the caseworker’s testimony about her observations during a single visit, which is insufficient to support the finding of neglect on that basis … . Matter of Dream F. (Phillystina R.), 2020 NY Slip Op 05832, First Dept 10-15-20

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWAY HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case because it did not demonstrate when the stairway where plaintiff slipped and fell was last cleaned or inspected:

Defendant did not demonstrate that it lacked constructive notice of the grease as it failed to show when the stairwell was last cleaned or inspected … . Proof of a regular maintenance schedule “does not suffice for purposes of showing that it was followed” … , and since the superintendent was due to clean the hallways and stairs on the day of the accident, plaintiff’s observation of debris on the stairs shows that no such maintenance was done prior to her fall. White v MP 40 Realty Mgt. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05838, First Dept 10-15-20

 

, ,

THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN ARTICLE 8 FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS; ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Family Court’s order of protection imposed after a finding appellant had committed a family offense, determined the finding was based upon inadmissible hearsay. The hearsay exception in Article 10 of the Family Court Act does not apply to family offense (Article 8) proceedings:

In a family offense proceeding, “[o]nly competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in a fact-finding hearing” (Family Ct Act § 834). In child protective proceedings brought pursuant to articles 10 and 10-A of the Family Court Act, there is a statutory hearsay exception for “previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]). “[A]lthough the hearsay exception contained in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) has been applied in the context of custody proceedings commenced pursuant to Family [Court] Act article 6 where the basis of the custody proceeding is founded on neglect or abuse such that the issues are inextricably interwoven,” section 1046(a)(vi) is inapplicable in a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 … . …

… Dhanmatie Godfrey filed a family offense petition against Zahamin Bahadeur, in which she alleged that Bahadeur committed a family offense against one of her children. The only evidence presented by Godfrey in support of the allegations in the family offense petition were the child’s inadmissible hearsay statements, as testified to by Godfrey. The Family Court erred in admitting the child’s hearsay statements into evidence because the hearsay exception set forth in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) does not apply in family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 … . Matter of Godfrey v Bahadeur, 2020 NY Slip Op 05750, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND RELIED ON FACTS NOT IN THE RECORD; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice should not have granted because plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit relied on facts not in the record:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the affirmation of the plaintiffs’ expert, submitted in opposition to the motion, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants deviated or departed from accepted medical practice. Even assuming that the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to opine on the placement of an epidural catheter, the expert’s opinion that [defendant] departed from the standard of care was conclusory and speculative, and relied on facts that were not supported by the record … . Herrera v Sanroman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05726, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and that the required notice of default was in fact mailed to the defendants by first-class mail, or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage as a condition precedent to foreclosure … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Buah, 2020 NY Slip Op 05722, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff (CV) did not provide the proof required by Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The version of RPAPL 1304(2) as it existed at the time this action was commenced, provided that, “[t]he notices required by this section shall contain a current list of at least five housing counseling agencies that serve the region where the borrower resides from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services” …

… CV failed to submit evidence to demonstrate that the 90-day notices contained either five housing agencies that served the region where the defendants resided or were from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services. …

Additionally, CV did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that the defendants were properly served pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, CV relied upon the affidavit of Matthew W. Regan, its executive vice president, who averred that 90-day notices were sent in accordance with the statute. In his affidavit, Regan referenced copies of 90-day notices, which, however, did not bear any postmark. Moreover, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices . . . standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . Also, Regan’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the required notices were sent in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as Regan did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notices, and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . CV XXVIII, LLC v Trippiedi, 2020 NY Slip Op 05721, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

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