You are here: / Evidence
,

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))

, ,

BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’ RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined that substantial evidence supported the NYC Commission on Human Rights’ ruling that the conversion of a window to a handicapped-accessible entrance for a tenant in petitioners’ building would not cause petitioners undue hardship. The dissent argued petitioners had carried their burden of proof on that issue by presenting evidence the conversion presented many structural issues which might necessitate evacuation of the building. The majority simply decided there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s ruling and an appellate court’s review power stops there:

In light of the Commission’s ruling in favor of respondents and because petitioners have the burden of demonstrating undue hardship … , the issue is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion that petitioners failed to carry that burden.

“Quite often there is substantial evidence on both sides” of an issue disputed before an administrative agency … , and the substantial evidence test “demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable” … . Applying this standard, “[c]ourts may not weigh the evidence or reject [a] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” … . Instead, “when a rational basis for the conclusion adopted by the [agency] is found, the judicial function is exhausted. The question, thus, is not whether [the reviewing court] find[s] the proof . . . convincing, but whether the [agency] could do so” … . Matter of Marine Holdings, LLC v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 03303, CtApp 5-8-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’S RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))/APPEALS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’S RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted to the extent plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff, who underwent hip replacement surgery, suffered an eye injury either in the operating room or the recovery room:

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries he sustained to his left eye during hip replacement surgery performed at defendant St. Joseph’s Hospital (Hospital). Defendants Brett Greenky, M.D. and Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C. (SOS) were retained by plaintiff to perform the surgery, and defendants Mehtab Singh Bajwa, M.D., Tracie O’Shea, C.R.N.A., and the Anesthesia Group of Onondaga, P.C. (collectively, anesthesia defendants) were responsible for, inter alia, administering the anesthesia to plaintiff prior to the surgery. * * *

“Ordinarily, a plaintiff asserting a medical malpractice claim must demonstrate that the doctor deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury”… . “Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it” … .”In a multiple defendant action in which a plaintiff relies on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff is not required to identify the negligent actor . . . That rule is particularly appropriate in a medical malpractice case such as this in which the plaintiff has been anesthetized” … . Here, plaintiff was under the care and control of Greenky, SOS and the anesthesia defendants during the surgery, and the Hospital immediately after the surgery. During that time, plaintiff was either under anesthesia and/or not fully awake or oriented to his surroundings. While O’Shea testified that there was no indication of an eye injury when she delivered plaintiff to the recovery room, hospital staff testified that plaintiff’s eye was noticeably irritated at that time. Consequently, there is an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained the eye injury in the operating room or in the recovery room. ” Plaintiff was rendered unconscious for the purpose of undergoing surgical treatment . . . [, and] it is manifestly unreasonable for [the defendants] to insist that [he] identify any one of them as the person who did the alleged negligent act’ ” … . White v Bajwa, 2018 NY Slip Op 03246, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (RES IPSA LOQUITUR,  PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a power point presentation made by a defendant in a medical malpractice action was discoverable, even though the power point presentation was created for a quality assurance review meeting (usually off limits for discovery pursuant to Executive Law 6527):

We … conclude that the disputed materials are discoverable under the exception to the privilege for “statements made by any person in attendance at . . . a [medical or quality assurance review] meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting” (Education Law § 6527 [3]). Disclosure under that exception may be obtained where: (1) the statements were made during a quality assurance review meeting; (2) that review meeting concerned the same subject matter as the malpractice action; and (3) the statements were made by a defendant in the action … . “Statements” include written statements, such as letters… , and the PowerPoint slide show at issue here. Drum v Collure, 2018 NY Slip Op 03244, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EDUCATION LAW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/HOSPITALS (QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (HOSPITALS, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, EDUCATION LAW, QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW,  MATERIAL PREPARED FOR HOSPITAL QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW DISCOVERABLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO EDUCATION LAW 6527 (FOURTH DEPT))

,

COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the court, in awarding summary judgment to plaintiff, properly relied upon unsigned copies of the transcript of the deposition testimony of defendant’s witness because the defendant failed to return signed copies within 60 days and did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript (CPLR 3116(a)). Shackman v 400 E. 85th St. Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03223, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITIONS (UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPTS, EVIDENCE, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/UNSIGNED DEPOSITIONS ( COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3116(a) (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL, STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S UPLOADING OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING SOURCE CODE OWNED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, AFFIRMED, SOURCE CODE HAD A PHYSICAL FORM AND WAS APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of violating Penal Law 165.07 (unlawful use of secret scientific material). Just before leaving the employ of Goldman Sachs to begin work at another company, the defendant had uploaded (copied) to a German server source code used by Goldman Sachs for high frequency trading. There was no evidence anyone other than the defendant had access to the uploaded source code. The major issues were whether the source code had a “physical form” or was “appropriated” within the mean of the statute:

… [W]e conclude that viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the People, a rational jury could have found that the “reproduction or representation” that defendant made of Goldman’s source code, when he uploaded it to the German server, was tangible in the sense of “material” or “having physical form.” The jury heard testimony that the representation of source code has physical form. … [T]he computer engineer … testified that while source code, as abstract intellectual property, does not have physical form, the “[r]epresentation of it” is material. He explained that when computer files are stored on a hard drive or CD, they are physically present on that hard drive or disc, and further stated that data is visible “in aggregate” when stored on such a medium. The jury also heard testimony that source code that is stored on a computer “takes up physical space in a computer hard drive.” Given that a reproduction of computer code takes up space on a drive, it is clear that it is physical in nature. In short, the changes that are made to the hard drive or disc, when code or other information is stored, are physical. * * *

We conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence that defendant created a tangible copy of the source code on the German server in violation of Penal Law § 165.07. * * *

… [W]e must decide is whether there is legally sufficient evidence that [defendant] had the necessary mens rea of “intent to appropriate . . . the use of secret scientific material” (Penal Law § 165.07).  * * *

Appropriation does not imply depriving another of property. In fact, larceny in general is defined as involving either intent to appropriate or intent to deprive, with the clear implication that the two terms refer to separate concepts. * * * … [D]efendant may have intended to “appropriate” the source code without intending to deprive Goldman of all possession or use. People v Aleynikov, 2018 NY Slip Op 03174, CtApp 5-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL, STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S UPLOADING OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING SOURCE CODE OWNED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, AFFIRMED, SOURCE CODE HAD A PHYSICAL FORM AND WAS APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (CT APP))/SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL, STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S UPLOADING OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING SOURCE CODE OWNED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, AFFIRMED, SOURCE CODE HAD A PHYSICAL FORM AND WAS APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL, STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S UPLOADING OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING SOURCE CODE OWNED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, AFFIRMED, SOURCE CODE HAD A PHYSICAL FORM AND WAS APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (CT APP))/SOURCE CODE (CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL, STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S UPLOADING OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING SOURCE CODE OWNED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, AFFIRMED, SOURCE CODE HAD A PHYSICAL FORM AND WAS APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (CT APP))/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SECRET SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL, STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S UPLOADING OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING SOURCE CODE OWNED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, AFFIRMED, SOURCE CODE HAD A PHYSICAL FORM AND WAS APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (CT APP))

,

BEFORE CONSENTING TO A BREATHALYZER BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST IN THIS DWI CASE, MORE THAN TWO HOURS AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT WAS INACCURATELY TOLD A TEST REFUSAL WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE TEST WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EVIDENCE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurrence and a three-judge extensive dissent, determined that the warnings given defendant driver about the consequences of refusing to take the breathalyzer blood-alcohol test were inaccurate, rendering the defendant’s consent to the test involuntary and requiring the suppression of all evidence. The warnings, which were given more than two hours after defendant’s DWI arrest, inaccurately stated that evidence of defendant’s test refusal would be admissible at trial:

… [B]ecause the breathalyzer test was not performed within two hours of defendant’s arrest, and the requirements necessary to obtain a court order pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (3) were not met, the test results were not admissible under the statutory scheme (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 [1]; see also Smith, 18 NY3d at 550-551 [holding that, absent compliance with the statute, even evidence of a refusal must be suppressed]). Nevertheless, … the test results may still be admissible if defendant voluntarily consented to take the test because “the two-hour limitation . . . has no application” when the “defendant [has] expressly and voluntarily consented to administration of the [breath] test” … . The issue before us, then, is whether defendant gave his voluntary consent to the administration of the test, which generally presents a mixed question of law and fact … . However, it is undisputed that defendant expressly consented only after the expiration of the two-hour period and after being warned about the consequences of failing to do so; the parties’ dispute here turns on whether the warnings were legally accurate and, consequently, whether his consent was voluntary … .We conclude that, because more than two hours had passed since defendant’s arrest, the warning that evidence of his refusal to take the breathalyzer test would be admissible at trial was inaccurate as a matter of law and, therefore, the record supports the conclusion of the courts below that his consent to the test was involuntary. People v Odum, 2018 NY Slip Op 03173, CtApp 5-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DWI, BEFORE CONSENTING TO A BREATHALYZER BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST IN THIS DWI CASE, MORE THAN TWO HOURS AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT WAS  INACCURATELY TOLD A TEST REFUSAL WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE TEST WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EVIDENCE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI, BREATHALYZER, BEFORE CONSENTING TO A BREATHALYZER BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST IN THIS DWI CASE, MORE THAN TWO HOURS AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT WAS  INACCURATELY TOLD A TEST REFUSAL WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE TEST WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EVIDENCE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP))/BREATHALYZER (BEFORE CONSENTING TO A BREATHALYZER BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST IN THIS DWI CASE, MORE THAN TWO HOURS AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT WAS  INACCURATELY TOLD A TEST REFUSAL WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE TEST WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EVIDENCE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (DWI) (BREATHALYZER, BEFORE CONSENTING TO A BREATHALYZER BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST IN THIS DWI CASE, MORE THAN TWO HOURS AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT WAS  INACCURATELY TOLD A TEST REFUSAL WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE TEST WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EVIDENCE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP))

, , ,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department determined defendant bank’s (Capital One’s) motion for summary judgment in this forged-check negligence action was properly denied (without the need to consider the opposing papers). One of plaintiff corporation’s employees forged company checks made out to herself amounting to over $84,000. Plaintiff sued the bank for negligence pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) article 4:

Under article 4 of the UCC, with regard to repeated forgeries by the same wrongdoer, the customer’s failure to exercise reasonable care and promptness in examining its bank statements and to timely notify the bank of the forgeries in accordance with UCC 4-406(2)(b) generally will result in the customer being precluded from asserting claims against the bank in connection with the loss associated with any such forgeries … . However, the loss of repeated forgeries may be shifted back to the bank in the circumstance where the bank failed to use ordinary care in paying the forged checks … . With regard to the issue of ordinary care, UCC 4-103(3) provides that “in the absence of special instructions, action or non-action consistent with clearing house rules and the like or with a general banking usage not disapproved by this Article, prima facie constitutes the exercise of ordinary care.” Thus, under this “safe harbor” provision, a bank can ensure that its conduct at least prima facie meets an ordinary care standard, by showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or practices … . However, it is the bank, as the party that benefits from the “safe harbor” provision, that bears the burden of proving general clearing house rules or general banking usage in order to establish ordinary care … . …

Capital One did not meet its burden of showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or general clearing house rules, and therefore, it failed to demonstrate prima facie that it exercised ordinary care in paying the forged checks … .Capital One’s submissions failed to provide any evidentiary basis that its processing of the forged checks comported with general banking usage. Redgrave Elec. Maintenance, Inc. v Capital One, N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 0316, Second Dept 5-2-18

​BANKING LAW (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (BANKING LAW, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORGED CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

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