You are here: / Evidence
,

AN ADULT GUEST’S ACT OF POURING KEROSENE ONTO AN ACTIVE FIRE IN A FIRE PIT AT DEFENDANTS’ HOME WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S BURN INJURIES; THE DISSENTER ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DUTY TO CONTROL THE GUEST’S BEHAVIOR WAS BREACHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s burn injuries was a guest’s (Gray’s) pouring kerosene onto an active fire in a fire pit at defendants’ home. All parties were adults. The mere presence of kerosene at the home did not constitute a dangerous condition. The dissenter argued defendant-parent did not demonstrate his daughter did not breach a duty to control the conduct of Gray:

Although plaintiff correctly contends that defendants owed him a duty of care as a guest on their property … , defendants’ submissions establish that they did not breach their duty to “act as . . . reasonable [persons] in maintaining [the] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . All attendees of the gathering at defendants’ property on the night of the incident were adults, and it was not unreasonable for defendants to allow the small group of adults to use the premises for an unsupervised gathering around a fire pit. Bavisotto v Doldan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06247, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

NO QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE THE STORM, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants demonstrated they were entitled to summary judgment under the storm in progress rule. The dissenters argued there was a question of fact whether the icy condition was there before the storm:

… [W]e conclude that defendants established as a matter of law “that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and, thus, that [they] had no duty to remove the snow [or] ice until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm’ ” … .

Where, as here, a defendant’s own submissions do not raise an issue of fact whether the icy condition existed before the storm, the burden shifts to the plaintiff “to raise a triable issue of fact whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where the plaintiff fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition’ ” …

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, nothing in her deposition testimony, which was submitted by defendants in support of their respective motions, raised a triable issue of fact whether the ice she allegedly observed existed before the storm … , and the evidence that plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motions also did not raise a triable issue of fact. Battaglia v MDC Concourse Ctr., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06310, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE AN ALIBI WITNESS WAS NOT INTERVIEWED; A WITNESS’S RECANTATION WAS PROPERLY FOUND UNBELIEVABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined a hearing was required on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. The motion alleged that defense counsel did not adequately investigate alibi witnesses. The Fourth Department also held that County Court properly found a witness’s recantation of trial testimony unbelievable:

In recognition of the fact that “[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony” … , courts have set forth a list of factors to be considered where, as here, the newly discovered evidence is recantation evidence, i.e., “(1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness’s demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the trial testimony; (4) the reasons offered for both the trial testimony and the recantation; (5) the importance of facts established at trial as reaffirmed in the recantation; and (6) the relationship between the witness and defendant as related to a motive to lie” … .  Another relevant factor is “whether the recantation refutes the eyewitness testimony of another witness” … . …

… [D]defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion was supported by notarized but unsworn statements of two previously unknown individuals who claimed that they would have corroborated the trial testimony of defendant and his mother that defendant was at a party at his mother’s home for the entire evening of the shooting. One of those witnesses specifically stated that she was at all times willing to “make [a] statement” but was never contacted by defense counsel. Two additional witnesses stated that they observed defendant at that party some time after the shooting. While those witnesses do not provide a technical alibi for defendant because they did not discuss defendant’s location at the time of the shooting … , they tend to support the alibi evidence that defendant could not have been the shooter because he was at a party at his mother’s house for the entire evening … . People v Howard, 2019 NY Slip Op 06309, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET, DISSENTERS ARGUED THE COURT HAD THE DISCRETION TO CONSIDER THE MOTION AS A MOTION TO REARGUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the motion to renew should not have been granted. The dissenters argued the motion could have been considered a motion to reargue in the exercise of discretion:

It is well settled that “[a] motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts that were unavailable at the time of the original motion . . . and, inter alia, that would change the prior determination” (… see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Further, “[a]lthough a court has discretion to grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made’ . . . , it may not exercise that discretion unless the movant establishes a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion’ ” ( …see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). In particular, “[l]eave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion” … . …

We reject our dissenting colleagues’ conclusion that the court would have been “justified” in exercising discretion to treat the motion to renew as a motion to reargue, and that it effectively did so in granting Camelot’s motion. We disagree. There is no justification in this case to “deem” Camelot’s motion as one seeking reargument and we decline to do so because, in our view, Camelot actively foreclosed that avenue of relief. The Walton & Willet Stone Block, LLC v City of Oswego Community Dev. Off., 2019 NY Slip Op 06245, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, ,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT, REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO; STANDARD OF PROOF IS PREPONDERANCE NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was insufficient evidence to justify a level three risk assessment. The assessment was reduced to level two. The court noted that County Court should have applied the preponderant evidence standard, not a clear and convincing standard:

… [T]he People did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant had the requisite pattern of drug use, and there is no “indication in the record that drugs . . . played a role in the instant offense” … . * * *

… [T]he hearsay statement by defendant’s ex-wife that he is a “marijuana addict” is entitled to no weight. Not only is that statement conclusory and unsupported by any other evidence, nothing in the record suggests that defendant’s ex-wife is qualified to diagnose addiction. * * *

… [T]he court erred in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 12, for failure to accept responsibility, given that he “pleaded guilty, admitted his guilt, appeared remorseful when interviewed in connection with the preparation of a presentence report, and apologized” for his conduct  … . People v Kowal, 2019 NY Slip Op 06325, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue was not supported by admissible evidence and should have been denied:

“To effect a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(1), a defendant must show that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper and that its choice of venue is proper” … . To succeed on their motion here, the defendants were obligated to demonstrate that, on the date that this action was commenced, neither of the parties resided in Kings County … . Only if the defendants made such a showing were the plaintiffs required to establish, in opposition, via documentary evidence, that the venue they selected was proper … .

Here, the defendants failed to submit their certificate of incorporation. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the computer printout they submitted in support of their motion from the website of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations was inadmissible, since it was not certified or authenticated, and it was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient to demonstrate its admissibility as a business record … . Therefore, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating that their principal office was located in Nassau County and that the plaintiffs’ choice of venue in Kings County was improper … . O.K. v Y.M. & Y.W.H.A. of Williamsburg, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06156, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S BUS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was in the crosswalk when she was struck by defendant’s bus making a right turn:

The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting her own affidavit and a certified copy of the police accident report, which demonstrated that she was walking within a crosswalk, with the pedestrian signal in her favor, when the defendants’ vehicle failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a non-negligent explanation for striking the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s motion was not premature, as the defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff … . Rodriguez-Garcia v Bobby’s Bus Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06221, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FROM BRONX TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant doctor’s (Goldstein’s) motion to change the venue of this medical malpractice action from Bronx to Westchester County should not have been granted. The majority held the burden was on Goldstein to demonstrate the need for a change of venue and that burden was not met:

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action in Bronx County, alleging that defendants were negligent in rendering podiatric care and treatment to her between April and September 2016. Defendants moved and cross-moved to transfer venue to Westchester County. WestMed and Rye submitted an affidavit of their medical director averring that Dr. Goldstein was one of their employees in Westchester. Dr. Goldstein submitted an affidavit averring that he had offices in Bronx County and Westchester County. He indicated that Westchester County was where his principal place of business was located because that was where he spent the majority of his time. However, he also averred that he maintained privileges at St. Barnabas Hospital and supervised podiatric residents at two St. Barnabas Hospital clinics where approximately 150 patients per month were seen. He averred that in addition he saw approximately 20-25 patients per week at a Bronx Park Medical pavilion located at 2016 Bronxdale Avenue in the Bronx.

Plaintiff is suing not only Westmed Medical Group, P.C. and Rye Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, but Dr. Goldstein individually. Since Dr. Goldstein is a party to the lawsuit, venue is proper in the county where he may be said to reside. CPLR 503(a) provides that the place of trial “shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced,” and, insofar as relevant here, “[a] party resident in more than one county shall be deemed a resident of each such county” … . Dr. Goldstein may also be viewed as an individually-owned business, and thus a resident of any county in which he has a principal office (CPLR 503[d]). Thus, an individually-owned business, much as a partnership, may be deemed a resident of the county where it has its principal office, as well as any county in which the individual owner being sued resides … . Siegel notes that the “principal office” county is an alternative; venue may still be based on the residence of natural-born parties … .

Applying these principles, Dr. Goldstein’s affidavit, attesting to residency in Westchester County but devoid of supporting documentation of residency, was insufficient to prove that plaintiff’s designation of Bronx County as venue was improper … . Lividini v Goldstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06150, Fourth Dept 8-20-19

 

,

THE SOURCE CODE USED TO CONNECT DNA FROM THE MURDER SCENE TO THE DEFENDANT GENERATED A REPORT WHICH IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE TESTIMONIAL, HOWEVER, THE SOURCE CODE, AS A FORM OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, WAS NOT THE DECLARANT; THEREFORE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE SOURCE CODE DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, over a concurrence, determined the evidence concerning the TrueAllele source code used to connect the DNA found at the murder scene to the defendant was testimonial, but the source code, as artificial intelligence, was not the declarant. Therefore the fact that the defendant was not provided with the source code (which was not requested by the defendant during the trial) did not deprive defendant of the right to confront the witnesses against him. Rather, the Third Department found, the witness who testified about how the source code was used in the DNA testing was the declarant. Defendant had raised the intriguing question whether the source code, as a form of artificial intelligence, was the actual declarant triggering the right of confrontation:

Cybergenetics was “acting in the role of assisting the police and prosecutors in developing evidence for use at trial” … . Also, the report reflects TrueAllele’s conclusions “upon review of the raw data associated with the testing” … . TrueAllele, by running at the source code’s direction, compared DNA found at the crime scene to that of defendant’s DNA and generated the report containing the likelihood ratios, which, in effect, implicates defendant in the murder; thus, it is clearly biased in favor of law enforcement … . Accordingly, application of the primary purpose test reveals that the TrueAllele report is testimonial in nature … .

Despite concluding that the TrueAllele report is testimonial, we do not find, given the particular facts of this case, that the source code, even through the medium of the computer, is a declarant. This is not to say that an artificial intelligence-type system could never be a declarant, nor is there little doubt that the report and likelihood ratios at issue were derived through distributed cognition between technology and humans … . Indeed, similar to many expert reports, the testimonial aspects of the TrueAllele report are formulated through a synergy and distributed cognition continuum between human and machine … , but this fact alone does not tip the scale so far as to transform the source code into a declarant. People v Wakefield, 2019 NY Slip Op 06143, Third Department, 8-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED 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’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged a discarded metrocard was the cause of her slip and fall on a train station stairwell. The defendant did not demonstrate when the stairwell was last inspected or cleaned:

Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff … alleges that he was injured when, while descending stairs in a subway station, he slipped and fell on a discarded Metrocard. Although the cleaner on duty in the station testified he was given a Cleaners Manual and a written cleaning schedule, evidencing that defendant had a “rational means for dealing with the problem” of strewn MetroCards on the stairwell of train stations, the cleaner conceded that he could not recall whether he had deviated from his usual work schedule on the date of plaintiff’s accident and he did not have an independent recollection of when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … .

Because defendant did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to establish how long the condition existed … . Carela v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 06140, First Dept 8-13-19

 

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