You are here: / Evidence
,

THE EXISTENCE OF A HANDRAIL ON THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL ON THE RIGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case should not have been granted. The fact that there was a handrail on the left did not warrant summary judgment because there was no handrail on the right:

Plaintiff … was injured when, while descending the right side of the exterior staircase of the subject premises, she slipped and when she tried to grab onto a handrail, there was no right-sided handrail. A triable issue of fact thus exists as to whether the absence of a required handrail on that side of the staircase was a proximate cause of the accident … . Defendants’ argument that the missing handrail on the right side of the staircase did not proximately cause plaintiff’s fall since she chose not to use the available left-side handrail, is directed to the issue of comparative negligence … . Gil v Margis Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03089, First Dept 5-28-20

 

, , ,

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE PURSUANT TO A 2019 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION; VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined: (1) a 2019 Court of Appeals decision clarified the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s duty to keep sidewalks safe, notwithstanding any maintenance arrangement with a tenant; (2) although the plaintiff was required to allege the defendant violated the NYC Administrative Code and failed to do so, plaintiff could rely on the Code provision in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion; and (3) plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the ice condition existed before the alleged storm in progress at or near the time of the fall:

… [T]he court’s determination that defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he is an out-of-possession landlord is no longer sound in light of the Court of Appeals’s decision in Xiang Fu He v Troon Mgt., Inc. (34 NY3d 167 [2019]). …[E]ven if … plaintiff was required to plead defendant’s violation of Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-210 – which he undisputedly failed to do – plaintiff’s reliance thereon for the first time in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was permissible, given that doing so did not raise any new theory of liability or prejudice … . Herrera v Vargas, 2020 NY Slip Op 03082, First Dept 5-28-20

 

,

BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIES TO VIDEO EVIDENCE AS WELL AS WRITINGS; ERROR IN FAILING TO EXCLUDE THE VIDEO EVIDENCE WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, disagreeing with County Court, determined the best evidence rule applies to video evidence. The error was deemed harmless however:

Defendant asserts that, under the best evidence rule, the cell phone video recording of surveillance video that depicted the exterior of the bar … , as well as the observations of the detective who viewed and recorded this cell phone video, should have been precluded. Defendant further asserts that the detective should not have been allowed to testify about what he saw on a surveillance video showing the inside of the bar. In overruling defendant’s objection, County Court noted that the best evidence rule applied only to writings. Contrary to the court’s reasoning, however, the best evidence rule can apply to videos (see e.g. People v Cyrus, 48 AD3d 150, 159 [2007] …). Furthermore, the People did not call the bar manager or a person who installed the video equipment to authenticate the surveillance video … . Accordingly, the court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to this evidence. People v Watson, 2020 NY Slip Op 03050, Third Dept 5-28-20

 

, , , , ,

MOTIONS IN LIMINE WHICH AFFECT THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ARE APPEALABLE; TWO-YEAR WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE MUNICIPALITIES; PRECLUDING EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED UPON DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff did not allege separate claims for personal injury and wrongful death, therefore the two-year wrongful-death statute of limitations in EPTL 5-4.1, not the one-year-ninety-days statute of limitations for negligence, applied to the actions against the municipalities; (2) motions in limine which limit the scope of the trial are appealable; and (3) preclusion of plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, based upon deficient disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d)(1), was an abuse of discretion. The action arose from a gas explosion at the great grandfather’s house which killed plaintiff’s 15-month-old son. Plaintiff sued the village, the town, the county and the New York State Electric & Gss Corporation (NYSEG). With regard to the motions in limine, the Third Department wrote:

“An order ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable as of right or by permission since an order made in advance of trial which merely determined the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling. However, an order that limits the scope of issues to be tried, affecting the merits of the controversy or the substantial rights of a party, is appealable” … . As to plaintiff’s objection to that part of the order as allowed evidence of the great grandfather’s negligence as a defense to the claim of res ipsa loquiter does not limit the scope of issues or impact a substantial right, such issue is not appealable … . Plaintiff also contends that Supreme Court erred in partially granting NYSEG’s motion to preclude the testimony of Reiber, plaintiff’s economist. Finding that the expert disclosure lacked reasonable detail as to how the value that Reiber assigned to plaintiff’s lost services and support would be calculated, Supreme Court precluded his testimony with regard to said damages. … However, because this ruling restricted plaintiff’s ability to prove and recover damages, this issue is appealable … . Reed v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03054, 5-28-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK NEVER REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT; FIFTH FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no evidence plaintiff bank revoked the acceleration of the mortgage debt and the foreclosure action was therefore time-barred:

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank failed to affirmatively revoke the acceleration of defendant’s mortgage debt, as mere voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action is insufficient, in itself, to constitute an affirmative act of revocation … . Wells Fargo admitted that its primary reason for revoking acceleration of the mortgage debt was to avoid the statute of limitations bar, and it proceeded to collect on the accelerated loan amount in a fifth foreclosure action filed shortly after it made its motion to revoke acceleration … .

Moreover, Wells Fargo’s fifth foreclosure action, commenced on or around December 11, 2017, is time-barred, as Wells Fargo had accelerated the mortgage debt when it commenced its second foreclosure action on September 16, 2009 (CPLR 213[4] …). The fact that the prior foreclosure actions were dismissed does not undo Wells Fargo’s act of accelerating the mortgage debt. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ferrato, 2020 NY Slip Op 03067, First Dept 5-28-20

 

, , ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ON THE FLOOR RESULTED FROM A RECURRING LEAK WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ROOF-REPAIR CONTRACTORS HIRED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BUT WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO THE CONTRACTORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) in this slip and fall case. However, summary judgment was properly granted to the roof-repair contractors hired by the NYCHA to ensure the roof was watertight. There was no evidence the contractors launched an instrument of harm causing the accumulation of water on the floor which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall. But there was evidence the water on the floor was caused by a recurring leak which should have been noticed by the NYCHA:

… [T]he Ruiz [eyewitness] affidavit established that leaks had existed in the ceiling for a long period of time before the accident, and that water from the ceiling had caused the accident. The photographs of the ceiling show discoloration and peeling paint that could be suggestive of a longstanding, “visible and apparent” condition — dripping water – that NYCHA’s practices and procedures unreasonably failed to observe … . May’s testimony that had he seen a leak he would have placed a bucket underneath it and notified his supervisor fails to account for why he or anybody at NYCHA did not notice the obvious condition of the ceiling, nor does the evidence that there were no complaints regarding leaks on the 20th floor explain why NYCHA’s maintenance staff did not notice it.

… [T]he fact that NYCHA completed the roof replacement before the accident does not absolve it of liability as a landowner. NYCHA failed to establish, through an expert affidavit or otherwise, that any condition that may have caused the leaks discussed in the Ruiz affidavit was actually addressed by the project. However, because [defendants] Liro and Corbex are not landowners but rather mere contractors hired by NYCHA to replace the roofs, they owed no direct duty to plaintiff, but could only be liable to the extent that they launched an instrument of harm, that plaintiff detrimentally relied on their performance of their respective contracts with NYCHA, or that they entirely replaced NYCHA’s obligation to maintain the premises in a safe condition (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). There is no evidence to suggest that either of those three conditions existed here. Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 03063, First Dept 5-28-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLIED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in this slip and fall case, determined defendant snow-removal contractor, Con-Kel, did not need to demonstrate the inapplicability of any Espinal exceptions in its motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not allege any of the exceptions applied:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). However, there are “three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Where the pleadings do not allege facts which would establish the applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, a defendant is not required to affirmatively demonstrate that the exceptions do not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

Here, Con-Kel demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by coming forward with evidence that the plaintiff was not a party to its snow removal contract … . Arnone v Morton’s of Chicago/Great Neck, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02997, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, ,

MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WERE ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ 911 CALL AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PLAINTIFFS; MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the municipal police and ambulance defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this negligence, wrongful death action. Plaintiff’s decedent died after his wife called 911 and the police and ambulance personnel were unable to revive him. The Second Department found that the municipal defendants were engaged in a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the plaintiffs and the municipal defendants:

… [T]he defendants were engaged in a governmental function as a provider of emergency medical services pursuant to a municipal emergency response 911 system, such that the defendants could not be held liable to the plaintiff unless they owed her a special duty … . One way to establish the existence of a special duty is by showing that the defendant assumed a “special relationship” with the plaintiff beyond the duty that is owed to the public generally … . “The plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing the existence of a special relationship by proving all of the following elements: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) [that] party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Of the four factors, the “justifiable reliance” element is “critical” because it “provides the essential causative link between the special duty assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury” … . …

There is nothing in the record to suggest that Officer Kelly or any of the defendants’ agents lulled the plaintiff into a false sense of security, or induced her to forego other avenues to transport her husband to the hospital, and therefore placed the plaintiff in a worse position than she would have been had the defendants never assumed the duty … . Marks-Barcia v Village of Sleepy Hollow Ambulance Corps, 2020 NY Slip Op 03007, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BROKEN CURB WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the broken curb which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

… [T]he defendants failed to meet this burden. In support of their motion, among other things, they proffered the affidavit of the director of engineering of Mount Vernon Hospital who averred that there were no maintenance or complaint records for approximately three years preceding the accident, that he would inspect the premises approximately once a month, and that “the sidewalk and curbing is repaired and replaced on an as needed basis.” The defendants did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the area at issue was last inspected prior to the plaintiff’s alleged accident … . Moreover, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall was not visible and apparent, and would not have been noticed upon a reasonable inspection of the area where the plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell … . Malloy v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 02921, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP, WHICH INCLUDED PEACE OFFICERS AS OPPOSED TO POLICE OFFICERS, THE WARRANT WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL; THE PARTICIPATION OF PEACE OFFICERS IN THE SEARCH WAS LIMITED AND DID NOT INVALIDATE THE SEARCH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that corrections officers (i.e., peace officers) participated in a search, along with police officers, did not invalidate the search:

There is no dispute that the search warrant was properly addressed to police officers of the City of Middletown Police Department and police officers of the New York State Police (see CPL 1.20[34][a], [d]). Accordingly, the search warrant complied with the statutory requirement that it “be addressed to a police officer whose geographical area of employment embraces or is embraced or partially embraced by the county of issuance” (CPL 690.25[1]).

The defendant is correct that the search warrant was improperly addressed to the Special Operations Group, since it includes members who are not police officers within the meaning of the statute (see CPL 690.25[1]; see also CPL 2.10[25]). However, “[s]earch warrants should be tested in a commonsense and realistic manner with minor omissions and inaccuracies not affecting an otherwise valid warrant”  … . * * *

Here, the record of the suppression hearing demonstrates that the Special Operations Group played a limited role in the execution of the warrant. Members of that group merely secured entry to the residence for the benefit of the police officers who actually conducted the search and recovered the physical evidence at issue. People v Ward, 2020 NY Slip Op 02943, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

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