You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have considered a new theory of medical malpractice raised for the first time in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment:

… [T]he complaint and bill of particulars were only sufficient to put defendant on notice of an allegation that, in January 2013, he failed to properly compare the 2013 EC [echocardiagram] with the 2011 EC contained in decedent’s medical record, and determine that a dilation in decedent’s aorta had increased. Plaintiffs’ papers were insufficient to put defendant on notice of plaintiffs’ new theory of liability – raised for the first time in her expert’s opinion – that he deviated from the standard of care in August 2011, when interpreting the 2011 EC … . Here, where negligence is specifically alleged to have occurred only between December 2012 and January 2013, we conclude that the vague, ambiguous, nonspecific and open-ended assertion “prior or subsequent thereto” contained in plaintiffs’ bill of particulars failed to put defendant on notice of a claim that he acted negligently in August 2011. Carroll v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08524, First Dept 11-26-19

 

,

DEFENDANT, A PAIN MANAGEMENT PHYSICIAN WHO OPERATED A “PILL MILL,” WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER IN THE DEATHS OF TWO PATIENTS WHO DIED OF OPIOID OVERDOSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion, determined that defendant, a pain-management doctor, was properly convicted of manslaughter, recklessly causing the death of two persons [Haeg and Pappoid] to whom defendant prescribed opioids as part of a “pill mill” operation:

… [W]e conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant acted recklessly. A rational juror could have concluded, based on a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences, that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Haeg and Rappold would take more drugs than prescribed and would die by overdose, and, given defendant’s position as their medical doctor, that defendant’s conduct constituted a “gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” (Penal Law § 15.05 [3]). * * *

The fact that Haeg and Rappold took the substances defendant prescribed for them in a greater dosage than prescribed is neither an intervening, independent agency nor unforeseeable. It is a direct and foreseeable result of defendant’s reckless conduct. As explained, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational juror could conclude that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Haeg and Rappold would take the medications he prescribed at a higher dose than prescribed in order to attain a narcotic high rather than for legitimate pain management, and that they would die as a result. People v Stan XuHui Li, 2019 NY Slip Op 08544, Ct App 11-26-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TWO CROSS-EXAMINE THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHO IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF THE OFFICERS’ DISHONESTY ARISING FROM OTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defense counsel’s requests to cross-examine the two police witnesses about prior acts of dishonesty. The two officers presented the only evidence which identified the defendant as the shooter in this attempted murder prosecution:

At the suppression hearing held before trial, that officer’s testimony supported defendant’s contention that, in preparing to testify in an unrelated federal criminal proceeding, he had misled the prosecutor in that case with respect to his involvement in a ticket-fixing scheme. … Defense counsel … was not permitted to explore what defense counsel characterized as that officer’s lies to the federal prosecutor regarding those activities.

… [T]he court limited exploration of that officer’s prior bad acts to his participation in the ticket-fixing scheme, and did not permit inquiry with respect to that officer’s deceit of the federal prosecutor.

That ruling was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. * * *

We also conclude that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law in precluding cross-examination of both officers with respect to prior judicial determinations that addressed the credibility of their prior testimony in judicial proceedings. People v Rouse, 2019 NY Slip Op 08522, Ct App 11-25-19

 

,

SANDOVAL RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A 1991 BURGLARY WAS ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD FOR THE LAST 23 YEARS; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined County Court should not have ruled defendant could be cross-examined about a 1991 burglary conviction in this assault, DWI and reckless driving case arising from a single car accident. The defendant’s record had been unblemished for 23 years, when he was released from prison. The defendant argued that, but for the Sandoval ruling, he would have testified. The Third Department found the error harmless, however:

In gauging whether a conviction is too remote, courts often consider the period of time during which the defendant was incarcerated, as County Court did here. For instance, in People v Wright (38 AD3d 1004 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 853 [2007]), this Court allowed inquiry about 20-year-old rape and robbery convictions where the defendant had been released from prison “only nine months prior to the present offense” … .

By comparison, here, defendant had been released from prison for 23 years, with an unblemished record leading up to this event. Under these circumstances, we conclude that County Court abused its discretion in allowing inquiry into the 1991 conviction, which was simply too remote … . People v Cole, 2019 NY Slip Op 08452, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

,

MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT EACH CLAIMED THE OTHER POSSESSED THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s (Maldonaldo’s) trial should have been severed from the co-defendant’s trial;

… [W]e agree with defendant that his motion for a separate trial should have been granted (see CPL 200.40 [1]). “[S]everance is compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer [the] defendant’s guilt” … . Through counsel and by testifying on his own behalf, Maldonado denied knowledge of the cocaine’s existence in his car and instead pointed the finger at defendant. Specifically, he testified that defendant had brought the Bugles chip bag into the car, that he did not know the contents of that bag, that he would not have allowed the bag in his car if he did and that defendant had his hands in the area where the bag was later discovered when the traffic stop was initiated. In contrast, defendant argued — through counsel and without testifying — that he lacked knowledge of the cocaine’s presence in the car and that the cocaine must have belonged to Maldonado, given that it was found in Maldonado’s car and that he had a criminal history involving drug possession and distribution — a subject brought out during cross-examination of Maldonado. By seeking to implicate each other, defendant’s and Maldonado’s defenses were clearly antagonistic, mutually exclusive and irreconcilable, and created “a significant possibility that the jury unjustifiably concluded by virtue of the conflict itself that both defenses were incredible and gave undue weight to the [People’s] evidence” … . People v Colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 08449,Third Dept 11-21-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SNOW THROWER WAS DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED AND WHETHER WARNINGS WERE ADEQUATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant snow-thrower manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in this products liability case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he turned off the snow thrower before placing his hand inside the mechanism in an attempt to clean out a blockage. The impeller was allegedly still spinning at that point and two of plaintiff’s fingers were amputated. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that a $20 clean-out tool should have been provided. The defendant failed to eliminate questions of fact about whether the snow thrower was defective and whether the warnings were adequate:

According to the plaintiffs’ expert, a clean-out tool “would have been technologically and economically feasible to include with the snow [thrower] in 1983” since the defendant manufactured a clean-out tool costing approximately $20 that was sold in Germany in 1983 as part of a “safety kit.” Based on the foregoing, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action sounding in negligence and strict products liability based on design defect.

… [A]lthough the defendant submitted evidence that certain warnings were placed on the snow thrower and in the owner’s manual, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it adequately warned users that the impeller may continue to rotate after the engine is turned off … . The defendant also failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was aware of the danger of putting his hand inside the discharge chute after turning off the engine, or that he would not have heeded more prominent or express warnings on the snow thrower … . Samyn v Ariens Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 08435 [177 AD3d 917], Second Dept 11-20-19

 

, ,

SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school did not demonstrate it did not have constructive knowledge of water on the floor of the cafeteria where plaintiff slipped and fell:

… [T]he School District failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged water condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the School District’s head custodian merely referred to the general cleaning and inspection practices of the custodial staff in relation to the south cafeteria of the school, but provided no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the plaintiff’s accident occurred … . Williams v Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 08443, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

,

$13,000,000 VERDICT IS AGAINST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT BACK-INJURY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS PLAINTIFFS STIPULATE TO A SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED VERDICT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the over $13,000,000 verdict was against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial unless the defendants (the Tarpleys) stipulated to substantially reduced damages in this traffic accident back-injury case:

​” The amount of damages to be awarded to a plaintiff for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and its determination will not be disturbed unless the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation'” ( … see CPLR 5501[c]). ” The reasonableness of compensation must be measured against relevant precedent of comparable cases'” … .  …

Considering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Tarpley, the awards for past and future pain and suffering and past and future loss of services deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation … (see CPLR 5501[c] … ). …

“A party claiming lost earnings has the burden of proving the amount of actual past earnings with reasonable certainty, by means of tax returns or other documentation” … . “Unsubstantiated testimony, without documentation, is insufficient to establish lost earnings” … . Here, the award for lost earnings was speculative to the extent that it exceeded the income Tarpley could have expected to earn based on his 2008 and 2009 W2 forms submitted into evidence, since no documentation or expert testimony was presented to establish that Tarpley’s income was likely to increase in future years … . …

Tarpley’s treating physician provided an uncontroverted opinion that Tarpley would require a future lumbar fusion surgery, with an estimated cost of $100,000, due to his ongoing symptoms following the prior laminectomy. However, the verdict awarding damages for future medical expenses in excess of $100,000 was speculative, and we reduce it accordingly … . Tarpley v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 08440, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

, ,

FORMAL ADMISSIONS, INFORMAL ADMISSIONS AND JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department Department explained the nature of an admission and the doctrine of judicial estoppel in this action to determine whether defendant, Weber, was a shareholder of plaintiff RMNY:

Weber’s prior admissions made in other actions that he was not a shareholder of RMNY did not constitute formal judicial admissions entitling RMNY to summary judgment. Formal judicial admissions are facts admitted by a party’s pleadings … , and are conclusive of the facts admitted in the action in which they are made … . The admissions relied upon here were not made in this action.

Furthermore, RMNY failed to establish that the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies. Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed  … . The doctrine applies only where the party secured a judgment in his or her favor in the prior proceeding … . This doctrine “rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise'” … . “The doctrine is invoked to estop parties from adopting such contrary positions because the judicial system cannot tolerate this playing fast and loose with the courts” … .Here, since RMNY failed to show that Weber secured any formal grant of relief in the other actions based upon his prior statements, they do not implicate the doctrine of inconsistent positions … . Rather, the statements constitute informal judicial admissions that are not conclusive but are “merely evidence of the fact or facts admitted” … , “the circumstances of which may be explained at trial” … . Re/Max of N.Y., Inc. v Weber, 2019 NY Slip Op 08432, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF LATE DISCLOSURE AND DEMANDING THE MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THE EXPERT PROPERLY DENIED IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to preclude plaintiff from offering his expert’s report and to turn over the materials relied upon by the expert was properly denied in this stairway slip and fall case:

“Preclusion of expert evidence on the ground of failure to give timely disclosure, as called for in CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), is generally unwarranted without a showing that the noncompliance was willful or prejudicial to the party seeking preclusion” … . “Prejudice can be shown where the expert is testifying as to new theories, or where the opposing side has no time to prepare a rebuttal” … . * * *

Here plaintiff withheld information about an expert he retained and who performed a comprehensive inspection and report before the demand for expert disclosure was served, failed to disclose this in response to such demand, and continued to withhold such information over the course of many court conferences and the years that the case was pending. He offers no excuse for his delay or for having served a response to defendant’s expert disclosure demand that was arguably misleading.

However, when plaintiff eventually did disclose the expert, it was not on the eve of trial … . His disclosure was made on or about March 9, 2018, about six weeks before the originally-scheduled trial date of April 30, 2018, a lead time further expanded with the court’s 60-day adjournment … . Moreover, notwithstanding defendant’s claims to the contrary, plaintiff’s expert did not advance a different theory of liability from that which plaintiff had previously advanced. * * *

Defendant also fails to show grounds to disturb the court’s denial of its motion to direct plaintiff to turn over materials relied on by his expert. Defendant claims it is entitled to these materials because, given the passage of time, any expert it would retain now would not be inspecting premises that resemble the premises at the time of the accident. However, defendant does not adequately explain its failure to timely retain an expert of its own. Rivera v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 08366, First Dept 11-19-19

 

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