You are here: / Evidence
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CRUMBLING ASPHALT, 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 did not demonstrate they lacked constructive notice of the crumbling asphalt around a sewer grate in this slip and fall case. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

A property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . In a premises liability case, a defendant who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the condition that allegedly caused the accident nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence… . “To provide constructive notice, a dangerous condition must be visible and apparent and must exist for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it'” … .

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the defendants’ motion demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have actual notice of the alleged dangerous condition, but failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they created the condition or had constructive notice of it … .Stepkowski v Holy Trinity Diocesan High Sch., 2019 NY Slip Op 00924, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff was treated by an ophthalmologist for eye pain. The doctor suspected glaucoma. Six months later plaintiff was diagnosed with meningioma, a noncancerous tumor of the membranes surrounding the brain. Plaintiff’s expert did not lay a foundation for an opinion that the meningioma could have been treated with radiation, rather than surgery, had it been discovered earlier:

” While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field . . . the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable'” … . “Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, who was board certified in ophthalmology, was qualified to, and did, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether [defendants] deviated from the accepted standard of care in failing to refer the plaintiff to a neurologist to further evaluate his symptoms. However, the affidavit was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff’s meningioma could have been treated by radiation instead of surgery if it had been detected in November 2014. The plaintiff’s expert failed to articulate that he had any training in the treatment of meningiomas or what, if anything, he did to familiarize himself with the applicable standard of care. The affidavit, therefore, lacked probative value and failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any departure from the accepted standard of care proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Simpson v Edghill, 2019 NY Slip Op 00923, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

, ,

SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF VIDEOTAPE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store (Fairway) should not have been sanctioned (adverse inference jury instruction) for spoliation of evidence, i.e., videotape depicting areas outside the store. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in an area near the entrance to the store. The videotape from the camera which captured the fall was provided to plaintiff. The videotape from the other cameras depicting other areas outside the store was not preserved:

The plaintiff’s January 3, 2013, letter specifically requested that Fairway preserve “any and all video footage depicting the location of my client’s accident.” Ten hours of video footage depicting the exact location of the accident before the fall occurred, including footage of the accident itself, were preserved by Fairway and subsequently disclosed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not initially request that video footage of other locations also be preserved, so Fairway was not on notice that such footage might be needed for future litigation … . In addition, the plaintiff has not established that the absence of such footage deprived her of the ability to prove her case … . Under these circumstances, the plaintiff did not establish that sanctions against Fairway were warranted … . Sarris v Fairway Group Plainview, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00922, Second Dept 2-5-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S KIDNAPPING CONVICTIONS VACATED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER, DEFENDANT WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF MURDER, BURGLARY AND ROBBERY, APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, noting the outcome of the appeal by a co-defendant, in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s kidnapping convictions should be vacated pursuant to the merger doctrine. Defendant was convicted of murder, kidnapping, burglary and robbery:

The defendant and Domingo Mateo were indicted on charges of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first and second degrees, burglary in the first degree, and robbery in the first and second degrees in connection with a home invasion, which occurred on May 3, 2011, and resulted in the death of one of the occupants of the home. Mateo was tried separately and convicted on all counts. Thereafter, the defendant was tried and convicted on all counts. On Mateo’s appeal, this Court found that his conviction of kidnapping in the second degree was precluded by the merger doctrine and modified the judgment of conviction by vacating the conviction of kidnapping in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment as to that defendant (see People v Mateo, 148 AD3d 727).

The defendant now contends that his conviction of kidnapping in the second degree was precluded by the merger doctrine. Although his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), we nevertheless reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, vacate the defendant’s conviction of kidnapping in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment as to the defendant … . People v Mejia, 2019 NY Slip Op 00903, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSIDER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES IF THEY FOUND DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE HIGHER OFFENSE ON THE BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the jury should have been instructed not to consider lesser offenses if it found defendant was not guilty of the greater charge on the basis of justification. The court noted that, on retrial, the jury should be instructed on two categories of assault third as lesser included offenses. Defendant was charged with attempted murder by stabbing and slashing the victim:

” This Court has held that, in a case involving a claim of self-defense, it is error for the trial court not to instruct the jurors that, if they find the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, they were not to consider any lesser counts'”… . Such failure constitutes reversible error … .

Here, neither the jury instructions nor the verdict sheet on the whole adequately conveyed the principle that, if the jury found the defendant not guilty of the greater charge of attempted murder in the second degree on the basis of justification, it was not to consider any lesser counts … . On this record, it is impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the five lesser counts … . People v Akbar, 2019 NY Slip Op 00894, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE AT A RODRIGUEZ HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that the detective’s testimony at the Rodriguez hearing established that the witness’s identification of defendant was confirmatory and noted that the witness need not testify at the hearing because hearsay is admissible:

At a Rodriguez hearing (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]), a detective’s testimony established that a witness was sufficiently familiar with defendant so that his identification of defendant was confirmatory. The People were not obligated to call the identifying witness … , because the detective gave detailed testimony about the witness’s relationship with defendant. The witness knew defendant, a frequent customer in the witness’s store, by his first name, and saw him several times a week over a period of three years.

Defendant’s request that the witness testify at the Rodriguez hearing was insufficient to preserve his present claim that such testimony was constitutionally required under the Confrontation Clause, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject this claim on the merits, in light of the fundamental difference between a suppression hearing, where hearsay is generally admissible, and a trial … . People v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 00824, First Dept 2-5-19

 

, ,

EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF LATE NOTICE, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED BECAUSE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON MITIGATION OF DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants in this Labor Law 240 (1) action were properly precluded from offering expert testimony because of late notice. The Fourth Department further determined that the jury should have been instructed on mitigation of damages, requiring a new trial:

… [T]he court determined that there was a willful failure to disclose because, prior to jury selection, defendants’ attorneys knew that they intended to present testimony from the psychiatric expert, but they did not disclose the expert until the day after jury selection began, which violated the court’s directive that defendants disclose an expert as soon as they knew of said expert. Although the record establishes that plaintiff was aware of the possibility that defendants would call an expert psychiatrist, he was prejudiced by the tardiness of the disclosure both because it impaired his ability to discuss the relevant issues during jury selection and because it hamstrung his opportunity to retain an expert psychiatrist of his own. Thus, based on the evidence in the record supporting the court’s determination that defendants had engaged in purposeful gamesmanship by withholding the information, and the resulting prejudice to plaintiff, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the proposed expert testimony … .

We agree with defendants that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on mitigation of damages insofar as it applied to past and future lost wages… . Here, plaintiff’s physicians unanimously agreed that he was capable of working in a light duty or sedentary setting and, although he did obtain work shortly after being advised by a doctor to seek job training, there is a question, under the circumstances, of whether the part-time job that he took was a reasonable mitigation of his damages. Flowers v Harborcenter Dev., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00749, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

, ,

A NEGATIVE INFERENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BASED UPON MOTHER’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY, SHE HAD NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION, FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE MODIFICATION WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN, JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FACTUAL FINDINGS, FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not demonstrate a change in circumstances that warranted visitation in his home, supervised by his new wife. The modified visitation was not demonstrated to be in the best interests of the children. The existing visitation arrangement, supervised by grandmother, was long-standing and was working well. In addition, the Fourth Department held that the fact that mother did not testify should not have been the basis of a negative inference. Mother had no knowledge of the circumstances underlying father’s petition:

Family Court erred in drawing a negative inference against [mother] based on her failure to testify at the hearing. The mother had no relevant testimony to offer inasmuch as she had no personal knowledge of the allegations in the modification petition … . Thus, we conclude that a negative inference against the mother was unwarranted because she did not “withhold[] evidence in [her] possession or control that would be likely to support [her] version of the case” … . …

Although the court correctly identified in its decision the applicable standard for modification of an existing custody and visitation order and referenced several circumstances that generally may support a court’s finding of a sufficient change in circumstances, the court failed to make express findings relative to the change in circumstances alleged by the father in his petition. Notwithstanding that failure, “we have the authority to review the record to ascertain whether the requisite change in circumstances existed’ ” … . …

Although the father’s marriage, new home, and diagnosis with sleep apnea are changes that have occurred since the time of the stipulation, those changes to the father’s personal circumstances do not ” reflect[] a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child[ren]’ ” … . …

… [T]there is no sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court’s determination that the children’s best interests warranted replacing the visitation supervisor, their grandmother, with the father’s new wife and permitting the father to select any location for his visits with the children … . Matter of William F.G. v Lisa M.B., 2019 NY Slip Op 00774, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of assault third degree. The dissenters disagreed:

… [T]he court did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). Based on the number and sizes of the scars to her face, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that the victim sustained only a physical injury as opposed to a serious physical injury … . People v Sipp, 2019 NY Slip Op 00771, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

, ,

FOUNDATION FOR OPINION EVIDENCE OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S FIELD WAS NOT LAID, DEFENDANT SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent died from a pulmonary embolism five days after knee replacement surgery. Plaintiff contended decedent was not given the proper dosage of a medication designed to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The Second Department noted that the plaintiff’s expert was a forensic pathologist and a proper foundation for expert opinion outside the expert’s field was not laid:

“While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable”… . “Thus, where a physician provides an opinion beyond his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered”… . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, who specialized in forensic pathology, did not indicate that he had any specific training or expertise in orthopaedic surgery, or prophylactic anticoagulation treatment to prevent DVT, and failed to “set forth how he was, or became, familiar with the applicable standards of care in this specialized area of practice” … . Noble v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 00608, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

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