You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant attorneys failed to demonstrate plaintiffs suffered no damages in this legal malpractice action. Plaintiffs alleged defendants delayed in evicting plaintiffs’ tenants resulting in $500,000 in lost rent. Defendants, in their motion for summary judgment, alleged only that plaintiffs’ damages were speculative, which merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof and is never enough for an award of summary judgment:

The defendants failed to submit evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiffs are unable to prove at least one essential element of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice … . The defendants’ styling of the plaintiffs’ damages theory as “speculative” was merely an effort to point out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof, which was insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden as the party moving for summary judgment … .

Moreover, even if the plaintiffs’ damages cannot be precisely calculated at this stage, expenses to the client resulting from attorney delays are deemed to be ascertainable damages in connection with a legal malpractice cause of action … . Iannucci v Kucker & Bruh, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 03514, Second Dept 5-16-18

​ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE,  DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))

,

THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in confirming the Commissioner of Public Safety’s termination of General Municipal Law 207-a benefits for an injured firefighter, explained what the term “substantial evidence” means in the context of an administrative hearing:

… [A]fter an examination, the respondents’ medical examiner found that the petitioner was capable of returning to light duty and that there would be a “medium to moderate” chance that he would be able to resume full duty if he underwent spinal fusion surgery. Thereafter, the respondents’ fire chief sent the petitioner a letter ordering him to return to work … , to assume a light duty position, or risk losing his benefits. A second letter … directed the petitioner to schedule the fusion surgery. The petitioner did not return to work … , and did not undergo surgery, choosing instead to proceed with a challenge of the return to work order.

After a hearing, the hearing officer concluded that the fire chief’s orders were “reasonable and rational,” and that the petitioner’s failure to comply with those orders was without justification. The respondents adopted the recommendations of the hearing officer. The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination.

The petitioner argues that the respondents’ determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of evidence and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides”… . Matter of Sestito v City of White Plains, 2018 NY Slip Op 03528, Second Dept 5-16-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT)

,

WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO A METH LAB JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, DANGER TO OCCUPANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the police officer’s (Tobias’s) warrantless entry into a garage which was being used as a meth lab was justified by the emergency doctrine. The officer saw smoke coming from a broken window in the garage and recognized the odor associated with meth production. The officer testified his fear of an explosion and the related danger to the occupants was the reason he entered the garage:

Tobias’ testimony established that his primary reason for entering the garage was not to arrest defendant or to seize evidence. … Tobias testified that, because he knew “[m]eth labs [to be] dangerous” and to pose a “risk of explosions and fires,” both of his entries into the garage were motivated by his concern for the safety of anyone who may have remained inside … . … [W]e find that Tobias’ warrantless entries into the garage were justified by the emergency doctrine … . People v Alberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 03393 [161 AD3d 1298], Third Dept 5-10-18

suppression, suppress

,

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child based upon a theory that was not charged in the indictment. The endangering count of the indictment alleged defendant had subjected the victim to several types of sexual touching, but not kissing. The jury was allowed to consider the evidence of kissing. The defendant was acquitted of all counts except the endangering count:

In summation, the People argued, over objection, that the defendant’s guilt of endangering the welfare of a child was established by the conduct of kissing the complainant. The Supreme Court then instructed the jury, over objection, that in order to find the defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of a child under the relevant count, the jurors were required to find that the defendant knowingly acted in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of the complainant, a child less than 17 years old, by engaging in sexual contact with her, defined, under the general definition in the Penal Law, as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” … . The jury returned a verdict of guilty on that count, and acquitted the defendant of the other counts submitted to it, which charged the defendant, inter alia, with engaging in vaginal and anal intercourse with the complainant.

Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories … . Here, the defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child under a count of the indictment that limited the People to a particular theory or theories of endangering the welfare of a child. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred when it permitted the jury to consider a theory not charged in the indictment—that kissing endangered the complainant’s welfare … . Since the defendant’s conviction may have been based upon an uncharged theory, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. People v Vasquez, 2018 NY Slip Op 03382, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INDICTMENTS, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the manslaughter and negligent homicide convictions, over a dissent, determined that those convictions, although supported by legally sufficient evidence, were against the weight of the evidence. Defendant, whose blood alcohol level was .12, caused a highway traffic accident. Several drivers stopped and a police officer was at the scene. Another driver, who was in traffic passing by the stopped cars and the police officer, struck a car and the police officer was killed. The Second Department found that the accident in which the officer was killed, which occurred a substantial amount of time after defendant’s accident, was not “temporally proximate” to the defendant’s conduct:

… [T]he People adduced legally sufficient evidence that the defendant’s actions set in motion the events that led to the death of the police officer, and that the defendant’s conduct was a sufficiently direct cause of that result. It was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct, including driving while intoxicated, causing the initial collision, failing to stop after the initial collision, and causing a second collision, would cause a dangerous condition on the roadway that would pose a danger to police or other first responders, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the incidents and prior to the securing of the accident scene… . The People adduced legally sufficient evidence of causation as to the counts of manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, aggravated criminally negligent homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. …

However, the jury verdict as to the manslaughter and homicide counts was against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence … , we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor … . Here, the verdict as to the manslaughter and homicide counts was against the weight of the evidence, particularly in light of the evidence that the driver of the SUV that struck the police officer failed to pay attention to conditions on the roadway, including the presence of multiple stopped vehicles and debris on the road, and approached the accident scene at a speed in excess of the speed at which other vehicles were traveling … . People v Ryan, 2018 NY Slip Op 03380, Second Dept 5-9-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE MANSLAUGHTER AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS WHERE SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED BY ANOTHER DRIVER WHO WAS PASSING BY THE ACCIDENT SCENE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this elevator-door injury case should not have been granted. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied and the plaintiff presented evidence the elevators doors had been malfunctioning for months:

… [P]laintiff was injured when the elevator door in defendant’s building unexpectedly closed on him as he attempted to enter the elevator. Contrary to the finding of the motion court, the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable under the circumstances presented since plaintiff testified that the elevator door, which was closed by electronic sensors and did not have rubber safety bumpers, suddenly and unexpectedly closed … .

In addition, plaintiff testified that the elevator door was malfunctioning for several months and proferred an affidavit by a tenant who averred to the elevator doors malfunctioning. This is sufficient evidence of constructive notice to defeat defendant’s showing that the elevator was regularly maintained … . Lilly v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03314, First Dept 5-8-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATORS, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATORS (NEGLIGENCE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (NEGLIGENCE, ELEVATORS, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The plaintiff’s affidavit and the accident report indicated that, after traveling through a puddle of water, the defendant’s bus slid, hit a wall and then rolled into the middle lane, striking plaintiff’s bus.  The complaint alleged the driver of defendant’s bus was travelling too fast for the conditions. The court noted that a plaintiff no longer needs to demonstrate the absence of comparative negligence to be awarded summary judgment on liability. The court rejected the emergency defense because defendant driver had acknowledged in the accident report he was aware the roads were wet and slippery. The court further found that the defendant’s affidavit, in which he stated he did not observe any wet or slippery conditions before the accident ,”appears to have been submitted to avoid the consequences of his prior admission . . . and, thus, is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit in which he swore that the road was wet and slippery, that puddles had formed, and that the driver of defendants’ bus was traveling at too fast a rate of speed under these circumstances, lost control, and struck plaintiff’s bus in the neighboring lane. In defendants’ accident report, relied on by plaintiff before the motion court and by defendants in their appellate brief, the driver of defendants’ bus stated that, as he drove over a puddle of water, the back wheels “beg[a]n to slide and the bus hit the wall and rolled into the middle lane,” striking plaintiff’s bus. Together, plaintiff’s affidavit, and defendants’ accident report, the authenticity and accuracy of which are not disputed, established plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendant driver submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that he was operating his bus at a reasonable speed “considering the conditions then existing.” At the same time, he did not deny that the roads were wet and slippery, but claimed that he did not “observe any accumulation of water or other slippery roadway condition,” even though in his accident report he admitted to having driven over a puddle. Martinez v WE Transp. Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03311, First Dept 5-8-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case was properly denied. Although the defendant, under the administrative code of NYC, did not have a duty to remove ice and snow from the site of the fall, it did undertake to do so. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, the defendant must present proof it did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition:

… [Defendant] failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it did not cause, create, or exacerbate the icy condition after it undertook to clean the sidewalk during the winter storm. Neither the testimony of the property’s caretaker nor the affidavit of the supervisor of caretakers’s indicates that they inspected the location before the accident and saw that it was properly treated with salt or sand … . Maynard-Keeler v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03322, First Dept 5-8-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ICE AND SNOW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SLIP AND FALL,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, reversed the Appellate Division and sent the matter back to the Appellate Division for a factual determination whether the trial judge’s credibility assessment of a spectator who claimed to have overheard jurors speaking about the defendant in derogatory terms was supported by the weight of the evidence. After questioning the spectator the trial judge determined no further inquiry was required. The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s conviction over a dissent:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it chose not to conduct an inquiry of two sworn jurors pursuant to People v Buford (69 NY2d 290 [1987]). Alerted to a complaint by a courtroom spectator that during a break in the trial the spectator allegedly overheard the jurors refer to defendant by a derogatory term, the trial court immediately called the spectator to the stand and elicited sworn testimony regarding her allegation. At the conclusion of the examination, the judge determined that a Buford inquiry was not required based on the testimony provided. We conclude on this record that the trial court made an implied credibility finding that the spectator was not worthy of belief and therefore a Buford inquiry was not warranted. This determination by the trial court was not reviewed by the Appellate Division. It was error for the Appellate Division to opine as to what remedy was warranted in response to the content of the spectator’s allegation, without determining whether the allegation was credible in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Division order and remit the case to that Court to exercise its own fact-finding power to consider and determine whether the trial court’s finding as to the spectator’s credibility was supported by the weight of the evidence. * * *

If, on remittal, the Appellate Division finds, upon its own factual review, that the record supports the trial court’s determination that the spectator lacked credibility, no further action was required. If the Appellate Division finds that the credibility determination was not supported, it must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in not taking further action … . … [A] credible allegation that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve or engaged in substantial misconduct within the meaning of CPL 270.35 cannot be ignored by the trial court, and failure to appropriately remedy the matter is reversible error. People v Kuzdzal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03304, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BIAS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))

,

EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a concurring opinion, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that a statement heard in the background of a 911 call should not have been admitted as an excited utterance. The statement ostensibly identified the defendant as the man who had just shot three people. Other than the defendant’s fingerprint found on the van the shooter got into, there was no evidence identifying the defendant as the shooter. Two trial judges had ruled the 911 statement inadmissible before a third trial judge allowed it to come in. The Court of Appeals held that the law of the case doctrine did not prohibit the third judge from ruling on the admissibility of the statement, but the statement was inadmissible because there was no evidence the declarant observed the shooting:

The decision to admit hearsay as an excited utterance is an evidentiary decision, “left to the sound judgment of the trial court”… , and thus may be reconsidered on retrial … . There is no reason to apply a different rule to a successor judge within the same trial and we, therefore, have no basis to adopt a per se rule prohibiting a substitute judge from exercising independent discretion concerning an evidentiary trial ruling.  * **

A “spontaneous declaration or excited utterance — made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event — which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant” is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay … . “The admission of a hearsay statement under any exception deprives the defendant of the right to test the accuracy and trustworthiness of the statement by cross-examination”… . Although hearsay, excited utterances may be admissible because, “as the impulsive and unreflecting responses of the declarant to the injury or other startling event, they possess a high degree of trustworthiness, and, as thus expressing the real tenor of said declarant’s belief as to the facts just observed by him, may be received as testimony of those facts”… . … “[I]t must be inferable that the declarant had an opportunity to observe personally the event described in the [spontaneous] declaration” … . Direct observation by the person making the excited utterance ensures that the declarant is in fact reacting to and “assert[ing] the circumstances of” the event causing the excitement … . People v Cummings, 2018 NY Slip Op 03306, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCITED UTTERANCE, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/EXCITED UTTERANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/LAW OF THE CASE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))

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