You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE PORT AUTHORITY DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BY SUICIDE; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT CLIMBED OVER A FOUR-FOOT-TALL PEDESTRIAN RAILING AND JUMPED OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, over a dissent, affirming summary judgment dismissing the complaint, determined the Port Authority was not liable for the plaintiff’s decedent’s death by suicide.  Plaintiff’s decedent climbed over the four-foot-tall pedestrian railing and jumped off the George Washington Bridge (GWB). Plaintiff alleged the Port Authority was negligent in failing to install suicide prevention barriers along the pedestrian walkways:

In this action to recover damages for wrongful death, plaintiff seeks to hold defendant the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey liable for the death of the decedent, who died by suicide after jumping off the George Washington Bridge (GWB). To fully capture the nature of this appeal, however, it is pertinent to first discuss that the issue here is not whether the Port Authority’s alleged negligence arose out of the performance of a governmental rather than a proprietary function; this Court has already determined that the Port Authority, as owner of the GWB, was acting in a proprietary capacity at the time this claim arose and therefore that the ordinary rules of negligence apply. In the appeal now presented to us, the Port Authority’s expert engineer opines that the engineering concerns associated with modifying the 100-year-old bridge justified the steps taken and the interim measures implemented, but also opines that reasonable engineering judgment delayed the implementation of the safety mechanism that plaintiff contends would have ultimately prevented the decedent’s death by suicide. We therefore consider whether, given the record presented, the Port Authority has established its prima facie burden under ordinary rules of negligence. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Port Authority established that the pedestrian walkways on the bridge were safe for the public at large, and the steps taken, including additional interim measures implemented prior to this incident to help individuals who, like the decedent, were suffering from suicidal ideations, were reasonable in light of the complexity and size of the bridge. Donaldson v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2025 NY Slip Op 02719, First Dept 5-6-25

 

, ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A RAISED MANHOLE COVER, EXPOSED WHEN THE ROAD SURFACE AROUND THE MANHOLE WAS MILLED IN PREPARATION FOR REPAVING, CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY THE CITY AND WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint, determined there were questions of fact whether the raised manhole cover constituted a dangerous condition, and whether the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car which struck a raised manhole cover. In preparation for repaving, the existing road surface was milled or scarified such that the manhole covers extended above the surface of the road. Although asphalt was placed around the manhole (called ramping) so that the wheels on one side of a vehicle could pass over it, here the wheels on both sides of the manhole were on the milled surface and undercarriage of the car apparently struck it, causing the windshield to crack and the air bags to deploy:

[Defendant’s witness] could not say whether that ramping made it safe [for a vehicle to traverse directly over the manhole, with the wheels completely to the side of the entire width of the manhole’s ramping. It is this condition that plaintiff alleges was dangerous and defective, and the City adduced no evidence to refute that allegation. Accordingly, whether the City’s work — the ramping of the manhole — “immediately resulted in the existence of a dangerous condition,” thus rendering the City liable to plaintiff for her injuries, is a question of fact for the jury … . …

The City’s argument that the court erred in rejecting its argument sub silentio that it is nonetheless entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it on the ground that the condition was open and obvious is unavailing. Whether a dangerous or defective condition is open and obvious relates to the duty to warn of the hazard, not the duty to neutralize it … . Summary judgment may only be granted on an open-and-obvious defense “when the established facts compel that conclusion . . . on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence”; otherwise, the inquiry “is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” … . Timmons v Praylow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02744, First Dept 5-6-25

Practice Point: The question whether a condition, here a raised manhole cover, is open and obvious applies to the duty to warn, not the duty to neutralize a hazard, and is rarely appropriate as a basis for summary judgment.

Practice Point: The written-notice requirement, which is often a condition precedent for a negligence action against a municipality stemming from a road-condition, does not apply where, as here, it is alleged the municipality created the dangerous condition (a raised manhole cover).

 

, , ,

THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT CONTINUED DESPITE HER REPEATED STATEMENTS THAT SHE HAD NOTHING ELSE TO SAY AND WAS DONE TALKING; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defendant had unequivocally and repeated stated that she was “done talking” and had “nothing else to say” during her interrogation by investigators. The interrogators continued questioning her as if they hadn’t heard her assert her right to remain silent:

… [W]hile being interrogated at the police station, defendant stated to the investigators six separate times that she had “nothing else to . . . say” and that she was “done talking.” Even if defendant’s initial statement that she had nothing else to say may have been prompted by her “unwillingness to change [her] story” ,,, , she repeated her desire to stop talking even after the conversation shifted to another topic … . It is clear from a viewing of the interrogation video that defendant repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that she no longer wished to answer any more questions from the investigators. There was nothing equivocal about defendant’s invocations of the right to remain silent, which were not scrupulously honored by the investigators, who continued the interrogation as if they did not hear what defendant had said.

We thus conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress any and all statements made by defendant on August 19, 2020 after 12:03 a.m. on the interrogation video. “Inasmuch as there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of defendant’s inculpatory statements contributed to the verdict, the error in refusing to suppress all of those statements cannot be considered harmless, and reversal is required” … . People v Lipton, 2025 NY Slip Op 02691, Fourth Dept 5-2-25

Practice Point: Any statements made in response to questioning after a defendant has told the interrogators he/she is “done talking” and has “nothing else to say” must be suppressed.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A NEGOTIATED SENTENCE, THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL; THERE WAS NO PROOF IN THE PLEA ALLOCUTION THAT THE DEFENDANT FIRED MORE THAN ONE BULLET (THERE WAS A SECOND SHOOTER) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the 25-year sentence for manslaughter and the 10-year sentence for attempted assault, which, pursuant to a plea agreement with a negotiated sentence, were imposed consecutively, must be served concurrently. Because the defendant pled guilty, the only relevant evidence is in the plea allocution. The majority concluded the record did not demonstrate that the defendant fired more than one bullet and therefore there was no proof the manslaughter and attempted assault charges stemmed from two separate acts (there was a second shooter):

“Consecutive sentences are appropriate only when either the elements of the crimes do not overlap or if the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct” … . The People bear the burden of establishing the legality of consecutive sentences and, when a defendant pleads guilty to a count in the indictment, may meet their burden by relying on the allegations in the accusatory instrument and any facts adduced at the plea allocution … . Where, as here, a defendant also pleads guilty to a lesser offense than that charged in the indictment, the People may only rely upon those facts and circumstances admitted during the plea allocution with respect to that count … . To this point, the facts necessary to support consecutive sentences may not be discerned from statements included in a presentence report … .

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden inasmuch as there are no facts alleged in the count of the indictment to which defendant pleaded guilty, or in the plea allocution relating to either count, that would establish that defendant’s “shooting a firearm,” which constituted manslaughter in the first degree by causing the death of the victim (count 1) and attempted assault in the first degree to a different victim (count 4), “arose from a separate and distinct pull of the trigger by defendant” … . People v Sabb, 2025 NY Slip Op 02624, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: To justify consecutive sentences the offenses must be the result of distinct acts. When conviction is by guilty plea, the plea allocution is the only admissible evidence of what happened (the pre-sentence report cannot be considered). Here, because the defendant did not admit to firing more than one bullet in the plea allocution, the sentences for manslaughter and attempted assault cannot be imposed consecutively. There was a cogent two-justice dissent.​

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE SLIPPERY CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined defendant did not not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the slippery substance because no proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall was presented:

The defendant … failed to establish … that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery substance on the floor. “To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’ … . Evidence of general cleaning practices are inadequate to show “lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … . Here, the managing member of the defendant testified only that all staff had a general responsibility for the upkeep and cleanliness of the restaurant. Outside these general statements, the defendant provided no further information on when the specific area of the plaintiff’s fall had last been inspected or cleaned … . Rhoden v 515 Rest., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02617, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: This case presents another instance of the failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. A lack of constructive notice is demonstrated by specific proof the area of the fall was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall, not by proof of general cleaning practices.

 

, ,

“LAW OFFICE FAILURE” WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND D

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not present a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to accept the late answer should not have been granted:

A defendant seeking to compel the plaintiff to accept a late answer “must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense” … . “Generally, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the court; however, reversal is warranted where the court improvidently exercises that discretion” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its defaults based upon law office failure. “[T]he movant must provide a detailed and credible explanation for the purported law office failure” … . “[A] conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel asserted in a conclusory and undetailed manner that the initial deadline to serve an answer and the extension consented to by the plaintiff’s former counsel were missed due to an office backlog and miscalendaring, and that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment was “misplaced” in the office … . Raphael v City of Peekskill, 2025 NY Slip Op 02616, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here allegations of “law office failure” did not warrant compelling the plaintiff to accept a late answer.

 

,

GRANDFATHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” AFFORDING HIM STANDING TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the maternal grandfather demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and therefore had standing to seek custody of the child. The matter was remitted for a custody award based on the best interests of the child:

“Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(2)(a), a grandparent has standing to seek custody of a child where the grandparent demonstrates the existence of extraordinary circumstances, such as ‘surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, and unfortunate or involuntary disruption of custody over an extended period of time,’ ‘or other like extraordinary circumstances'” … . An “extended disruption of custody” between the child and the parent “shall constitute an extraordinary circumstance” … . “The statute defines ‘extended disruption of custody’ as including, but not limited to, ‘a prolonged separation of the respondent parent and the child for at least twenty-four continuous months during which the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child and the child resided in the household of the petitioner grandparent or grandparents'” … . “However, the statute does not preclude a court from finding the existence of extraordinary circumstances even if the prolonged separation lasted less than 24 months” … . “Moreover, lack of contact is not a separate element under th[e] statute, ‘[r]ather, the quality and quantity of contact between the parent and child are simply factors to be considered in the context of the totality of the circumstances when determining whether the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child, and whether the child actually resided with the grandparents for the required “prolonged” period of time'” … . “‘Inasmuch as the Family Court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its determination should be set aside only if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record'” … .

The evidence at the hearing established that, even though the father had regular contact and parental access with the child, the maternal grandparents have taken care of the child for most of her life and provided her with stability. Additionally, the father allowed the mother and the maternal grandparents to assume control over, and responsibility for the care of, the child while the father assumed the role of a noncustodial parent, the child has developed a close relationship with her half-siblings and extended family in New York, and the child expressed a desire to continue residing with the maternal grandfather … . Matter of Clifton C. v Tory P. R., 2025 NY Slip Op 02585, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here the maternal grandparents had cared for the child for most of her life and father had assumed the role of a noncustodial parent. These and other factors rose to the level of “extraordinary circumstances” affording grandfather standing to petition for custody.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL 15 TO 20 FEET SUFFERING A FRACTURED RIB AND A FRACTURED FEMUR WHICH REQUIRED AN OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FIXATION SURGERY; THE VERDICT AWARDING $1.5 MILLION FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING, $2.5 MILLION FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $800,000 FOR FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict as excessive should not have been granted:

The plaintiff was injured when, while standing on a beam performing demolition work, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning duct fell and struck him, causing him to fall approximately 15 to 20 feet to the floor. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered, inter alia, a fractured rib and a fractured femur that required open reduction internal fixation surgery. A metal rod and screws were inserted into the plaintiff’s left leg. The plaintiff later underwent a surgical procedure to remove one of the screws. Furthermore, as a result of the accident, the plaintiff developed problems with both of his knees and his spine, requiring arthroscopic surgery on each knee and a laminotomy. The plaintiff walks with a limp, has limited motion of the hip and knees, and has developed arthritis that will worsen over time. Since the accident, the plaintiff has experienced constant pain despite having been administered numerous injections, including trigger-point injections and transforaminal injections, and having been prescribed several medications, including opioids. Further, the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff will continue to experience pain and will require future medical treatment, including pain management and, likely, a spinal fusion.

The jury awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sums of $1,500,000 for past pain and suffering, $2,500,000 for future pain and suffering over a period of 35 years, and $800,000 for future medical expenses over a period of 35 years. Thereafter, the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant separately moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside, as excessive, the jury verdict on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. In an order dated June 8, 2020, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the separate motions to the extent of directing a new trial on those categories of damages, unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the damages awards to the principal sums of $800,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses. …

* * * … [C]onsidering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the damages awards for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses, as awarded by the jury, were appropriate and did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation … . Aguilar v Graham Terrace, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02564, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: A jury’s damages award for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses should not be set aside unless the award is demonstrated to “deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation,” not the case here.

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT, AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL, AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER WHO RESIDES IN FLORIDA; THE CHILDREN APPEALED; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSED AND AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER, IN PART BECAUSE FAMILY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN AGES 12 AND 15 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an appeal by the children, reversing Family Court’s order issued after a nonjury trial, determined the record did not support the award of sole custody to plaintiff father who resides in Florida and who indicated during the proceedings he was not seeking residential custody of the children. The Second Department awarded sole custody to defendant mother:

“The court’s paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child” … . “In determining an initial petition for child custody, the totality of the circumstances, includes, but is not limited to, (1) which alternative will best promote stability; (2) the available home environments; (3) the past performance of each parent; (4) each parent’s relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the child, provide for the child’s overall well being, and foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent; and (5) the child’s desires” … . “Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, and therefore, deference is accorded to the trial court’s findings in this regard” … . “However, an appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a trial judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .

Here, the Supreme Court’s determination to award sole legal and residential custody of the children to the plaintiff lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. The plaintiff, who resides in Florida, represented during the proceedings that he was not seeking residential custody of the children. Moreover, while strict application of the factors relevant to relocation petitions … is not required in the context of an initial custody determination, the record does not indicate the court fully considered the impact of moving the children away from the defendant, and the only home they have known, to live with the plaintiff in Florida … . In addition, under the circumstances presented, the court failed to give sufficient weight to the expressed preference of the children, who were 12 and 15 years old, respectively, as of the conclusion of the trial, to reside with the defendant … . Joseph P. A. v Martha A., 2025 NY Slip Op 02562, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here the appellate court reversed Family Court which had awarded sole custody to father after a nonjury trial. It appears that the main basis for the reversal was Family Court’s failure to consider the wishes of the children who were 12 and 15. The children appealed Family Court’s order.

 

, , ,

THE RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG WAS NOT A “TRIVIAL DEFECT” AS A MATTER OF LAW, YET PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS DID NOT SUBMIT WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THE SLIP AND FALL CASE WHICH WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF THEREFORE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this legal malpractice action, determined there was a question of fact in the underlying slip and fall case which plaintiff’s attorneys could have, but failed to, raise. The raised sidewalk flag which caused plaintiff’s fall was not trivial as a matter of law, as the judge in the slip and fall case ruled. Plaintiff’s attorneys did not submit written opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment in the slip and fall case:

There is no “per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” (id. at 510). A “holding of triviality must be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone” … . Thus, the “issue is generally a jury question because it is a fact-intensive inquiry” … .

Even assuming defendants met their initial burden of proof in showing that plaintiff could not prevail on her negligence claim, plaintiff raised an issue of fact in opposition. Plaintiff estimated that the elevation differential of the defect was an inch and a half or “a couple of inches” at the time of her accident, and the adjacent building’s superintendent testified that the elevation was about half an inch to one inch on the day of the accident. Administrative Code of the City of New York requires remediation for sidewalk flags with a height differential of one-half inch or more (see Administrative Code § 19-152[a][4]). Violation of that code is “not per se non-trivial . . . [but] is one factor to consider when deciding the issue of triviality” … . Barrett v Sacks & Sacks, LLP, 2025 NY Slip Op 02547, First Dept 4-29-25

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s attorneys could have successfully precluded summary judgment in the underlying slip and fall case but failed to submit written opposition to the summary judgment motion. That failure raised a question of fact in the instant legal malpractice action.

 

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