You are here: / Evidence
,

$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

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHETHER THE ALLEGED DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about the existence of a dangerous condition. whether the defect was trivial, and proximate cause in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff allegedly fell after stepping on a loose piece of asphalt from the driveway outside her apartment:

Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she “stepped on a piece of the driveway” that was “maybe the size of a tennis ball if you were to cut it in half and it was flat.” Plaintiff did not photograph or preserve the piece of asphalt that allegedly caused her to fall, however, and we conclude that her testimony created an issue of fact whether the alleged defect on the property was “trivial and nonactionable as a matter of law” … . Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to establish that defendant was negligent in permitting a dangerous or defective condition to exist on the premises, she also “failed to establish as a matter of law that [defendant’s negligence] was the sole proximate cause of the accident” … . …

… [Plaintiff ‘s own] deposition testimony that she “didn’t really pay attention” to the driveway or the surrounding area prior to the accident raised an issue of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct was a proximate cause of the accident inasmuch as she walked down the porch stairway onto uneven ground in the middle of the night without using due care … . Jackson v Rumpf, 2019 NY Slip Op 08291, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THOSE ASPECTS OF THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS ISSUE WAS NOT ABANDONED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering and future economic loss in this back-injury case was against the weight of the evidence. The motion to set aside those aspects of the verdict should have been granted. A new trial was ordered on those elements of damages. The dissenters argued the future economic law issue was abandoned on appeal:

… [T]he jury’s failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering is ” contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation’ ” … . Although the evidence at trial established that plaintiff was permitted to return to work with no restrictions, the evidence also established that the injuries she sustained in the accident severely affected her ability to perform the same sorts of tasks that she had performed with ease prior to the accident. Moreover, as noted, the parties’ experts agreed that the injury to plaintiff’s lumbar spine was caused by the accident, and plaintiff presented uncontroverted medical testimony at trial establishing that she continues to experience pain as a result of that injury … .

We also agree with plaintiff that the jury’s failure to award damages for future economic loss is against the weight of the evidence.  Initially, we disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the contention was abandoned on appeal … and conclude that plaintiff adequately raised that specific contention in her brief … . Mast v DeSimone, 2019 NY Slip Op 08288, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

,

CHILD’S STATEMENT ABOUT AGE-INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONDUCT NOT CORROBORATED; NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MOTHER NOT PROVEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined that mother’s child’s statement about age-inappropriate sexual conduct involving mother’s child and a non-family child was not corroborated and therefore the neglect allegation against mother was not proven:

Although the testimony of the two caseworkers established that the disclosure reflected age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual matters, petitioner failed to submit “[a]ny other evidence tending to support” the reliability of the youngest child’s statements apart from the disclosure itself … . …

The two caseworkers who testified on behalf of petitioner asserted that they utilized forensic interviewing techniques to avoid leading the youngest child during their interviews, but petitioner failed to offer any evidence establishing that either caseworker was qualified to give expert validation testimony in such matters … . …

An admission by the mother “that she had heard that the purported prior incident occurred in the manner stated by others . . . is in no sense an admission of any fact pertinent to the issue, but a mere admission of what [she] had heard without adoption or indorsement’ ” … . …

… [P]etitioner offered no admissible evidence regarding the time frame when the mother became aware of that incident. Absent such evidence, we cannot conclude that the mother had sufficient time to act but failed to appropriately do so. …

We therefore conclude that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the subject children by failing to act as ” a reasonable and prudent parent’ ” would have acted under the circumstances … . Matter of Carmellah Z. (Casey V.), 2019 NY Slip Op 08298, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

SHIFTING BURDENS OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS CLARIFIED; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THEORIES OF LIABILITY REFUTED BY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONSTITUTED AN ABANDONMENT OF THOSE THEORIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing and modifying Supreme Court in three related appeals, clarified the respective burdens to be met at the summary judgment stage in a medical malpractice action. Applying those burdens, the Fourth Department found that summary judgment should have been awarded to the defendants in two of the three appeals. The court noted that plaintiff’s failure to address certain theories of liability refuted in defendant’s motion for summary judgment constituted abandonment of those theories. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. With respect to the burdens of proof, the court explained:

We note at the outset that the facts of this case provide the opportunity for this Court to review the appropriate standard for burden-shifting in medical malpractice cases. It is well settled that a defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action ” has the burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby’ ” (O’Shea v Buffalo Med. Group, P.C., 64 AD3d 1140, 1140 [4th Dept 2009] … ). As stated in O’Shea, once a defendant meets that prima facie burden, “[t]he burden then shift[s] to [the] plaintiff[] to raise triable issues of fact by submitting a physician’s affidavit both attesting to a departure from accepted practice and containing the attesting [physician’s] opinion that the defendant’s omissions or departures were a competent producing cause of the injury” … .

Upon review, we conclude that the burden that O’Shea places on a plaintiff opposing a summary judgment motion with respect to a medical malpractice claim is inconsistent with the law applicable to summary judgment motions in general … . We therefore conclude that, when a defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice claim, “[t]he burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact only after the defendant physician meets the initial burden . . . , and only as to the elements on which the defendant met the prima facie burden” … . To the extent that O’Shea and its progeny state otherwise, those cases should no longer be followed. Bubar v Brodman, 2019 NY Slip Op 08294, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

THE EXECUTOR PROPERLY WAIVED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ON DECEDENT’S BEHALF TO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH DECEDENT’S ATTORNEY’S TESTIMONY THAT SHARES OF STOCK HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE EXECUTOR WELL BEFORE DECEDENT’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the executor of the estate (respondent) properly waived the attorney-client privilege on decedent’s (Anthony’s) behalf and demonstrated. through the decedent’s attorney’s testimony, that decedent’s shares in the corporation (NYSFC) had been transferred to the executor well before decedent’s death. Therefore the shares were properly excluded from the estate. Despite the absence of stock certificates and corporate records, there was no showing that the executor destroyed evidence:

… [T]he Surrogate held a nonjury trial during which respondent, in his capacity as executor, waived decedents’ attorney-client privilege, and decedents’ former counsel thereafter testified that she did not include a specific bequest with respect to Anthony’s NYSFC shares in his most recent will because Anthony had already transferred those shares to respondent. After the trial, the Surrogate concluded that respondent had in fact satisfied his burden and specifically established that the shares of NYSFC were sold and transferred to respondent prior to Anthony’s death. * * *

On appeal, petitioners contend that Mayorga [302 AD2d 11] and Johnson [7 AD3d 959] support waiver of the attorney-client privilege by an executor only if the waiver benefits the estate. Petitioners assert that excluding an asset from the estate would not benefit the estate or its beneficiaries and that those cases therefore do not support a waiver of the attorney-client privilege here inasmuch as any waiver would only benefit the executor respondent. The 2nd Department, however, has permitted the waiver of the attorney-client privilege under circumstances similar to those presented here … .

… [W]e … reject petitioners’ contention that respondent should not have been allowed to waive the attorney-client privilege on decedents’ behalf as executor due to his own self-interest in the testimony of the decedents’ former counsel. Thus, we hereby join the 2nd and 3rd Departments in concluding that the attorney-client privilege may be waived by an executor. Matter of Thomas, 2019 NY Slip Op 08293, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A HARNESS; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE (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. Defendant’s expert’s affidavit was deemed speculative because it was not based upon record evidence. Defendant’s argument that further discovery might reveal defenses was rejected, in part, because defendant was not diligent in pursuing discovery:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim with his deposition testimony, photographic exhibits and expert’s opinion, which showed that he fell from a 10-foot high sidewalk bridge that he was helping to assemble on defendant’s property, when a pile of heavy wooden planks shifted and struck him on the legs, causing him to lose his balance. Plaintiff testified that the side barriers for the sidewalk bridge were not yet built, and he was not supplied with a safety harness to protect him from gravity-related harm … . …

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was premature where its expert opined that depositions of the contractor’s personnel yet to be taken might yield evidence that plaintiff was supplied with a fall-arrest safety harness, and that he was recalcitrant in not using it, lacks factual support in the record, and as such, the expert’s opinion in that regard is speculative and non-probative … . The mere hope that additional discovery may lead to sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion is insufficient to deny such a motion … . The record further shows that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to pursue discovery … , and defendant has not shown that it was diligent in pursuing discovery in this case … . Singh v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 08272, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted, despite an affidavit from the plaintiff which, in part, contradicted his deposition testimony. Plaintiff was struck from above by the chain in a chain hoist system:

Supreme Court correctly concluded that plaintiff Jose Goncalves’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion should not be considered to the extent that it averred that he was struck by the entire chain hoist system, which contradicted his deposition testimony that he was struck only by the chain itself … . However, the affidavit was consistent with his prior testimony that he was struck by the chain from above, and the record contains no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, plaintiffs demonstrated that the chain hoist system at issue failed, causing Goncalves to be struck by an object – either the chain hoist system or just the chain itself – from above, and thereby established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Goncalves v New 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08265, First Dept 11-14-19

 

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