You are here: / Evidence
,

AN UNSECURED LADDER THAT SLIPS OUT FROM UNDER THE PLAINTIFF WARRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder fall case should have been granted. The ladder was not secured and slipped out from under the plaintiff, who fell 10 to 12 feet:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . “Whether a device provides proper protection is a question of fact, except when the device collapses, moves, falls, or otherwise fails to support the plaintiff and his or her materials” … . “Specifically, with respect to accidents involving ladders, liability will be imposed when the evidence shows that the subject ladder was . . . inadequately secured and that . . . the failure to secure the ladder[ ] was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against the defendant. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted transcripts of his deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of a witness to his accident which showed that the plaintiff was exposed to an elevation risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), that the ladder slipped out from under the plaintiff as he descended from the roof, that the ladder fell away from the wall, and that the inadequately secured ladder was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a triable issue of fact—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts were the sole cause of the accident … . Ruiz v Ewan, 2025 NY Slip Op 04032, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: Here evidence the ladder was tethered to the house after the accident did not raise a question of fact about whether the ladder was unsecured when it slipped out from under plaintiff.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION OF A MENTALLY ILL PATIENT REQUIRES CERTIFICATION BY LICENSED PHYSICIANS, A NURSE PRACTITIONER IS COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE SUBSEQUENT RETENTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Love, determined that, at a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene law sections 9.31 and 9.33 to retain an involuntary patient, the petitioner can rely on the testimony of a nurse practitioner. The controlling statute does not require the testimony of a licensed physician:

Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27 et seq. establishes the procedure for the involuntary admission and retention of patients alleged to be mentally ill in a hospital. Pursuant to that section, a patient may be initially involuntarily admitted to a hospital upon the certification of two examining physicians, which must then be confirmed by a third physician who is a member of the psychiatric staff of that hospital … . A question of first impression before this Court on this appeal is whether, at a hearing held pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31 and 9.33 to retain an involuntary patient, the petitioner must furnish the testimony of a licensed physician rather than a nurse practitioner. * * *

There is no support in the statute or any related regulations for the proposition that the petitioner must establish its prima facie burden through physician testimony. Moreover, it reasonably can be argued that requiring the testimony of a physician, who may have comparably less knowledge of a specific patient’s mental condition compared to an experienced nurse practitioner who interacts extensively with that patient, would be a disservice to the court and the parties. The court, hearing the testimony and evidence in its totality, is in the best position to determine the value and credibility of a witness in determining these matters. Accordingly, we conclude that a nurse practitioner is competent to testify at a hearing held pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31(c) and 9.33(c). Matter of Raymond E., 2025 NY Slip Op 04006, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: A nurse practitioner is competent to testify at a retention hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law section 9.31 and 9.33.

 

, ,

THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD REDACT FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT ANY REFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s presentence report should have been redacted to remove reference to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted:

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in failing to redact improper statements from the presentence report (PSR) because they reference criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted … . Specifically, we agree with defendant that the inclusion in the PSR of statements regarding alleged sexual offenses by defendant involving another child, of which he was acquitted, “was inappropriate and inflammatory” … . We therefore direct County Court to redact the sentence on page 10 of the PSR referring to a statement by the victim “that there could be another victim . . . who was inappropriately touched by [defendant]”; the quotation on page 10 from an investigator stating that defendant ” ‘was having sexual intercourse with another underage female as well. High risk for children’ “; and the sentence on page 12 referring to a disclosure “that [defendant] has been sexually assaulting [the other victim] since she was nine years old” from all copies of defendant’s PSR.  People v Wilmet, 2025 NY Slip Op 03901, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A presentence report should not include any references to criminal conduct of which defendant was acquitted.​

 

 

, ,

THE POLICE SUSPECTED DEFENDANT HAD SPECIFIC WEAPONS IN A SPECIFIC VEHICLE; AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE SEARCHED THE CAR AND FOUND A WEAPON; LATER THEY SEARCHED THE CAR AGAIN AND FOUND A SECOND WEAPON; ONLY AFTER THE SEARCHES DID THEY START TO FILL OUT THE INVENTORY SEARCH FORM; THIS WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the weapons seized from defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop should have been suppressed. The police were looking for specific weapons in a specific car at the time of the search. Therefore the search could not be considered a valid inventory search:

… [T]he record reveals that the purported inventory search was actually a pretext to search for contraband. At the suppression hearing, the testimony and body-worn camera footage established that one of the officers who stopped defendant’s vehicle identified him and testified that defendant had, earlier that day, been identified as someone likely to be in possession of a weapon. Following the traffic stop and while defendant was being detained pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant, two other officers arrived on the scene. One of the arriving officers identified the vehicle defendant was driving as one that the police thought defendant would be using and would be keeping a weapon in. The other arriving officer promptly began searching the front passenger area of the vehicle; he opened the glove box and found a weapon, prompting a police officer to observe “oh, there it is.” At that point, another officer said “let’s check for the second one,” and shortly thereafter a second weapon was found in the same spot, precisely as predicted by that officer. * * *

Our conclusion is not based merely on the fact that, in conducting the first search, the “officers knew that contraband might be recovered” from the vehicle … . Rather, the evidence at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the officers’ purpose in conducting the first search was to find specific weapons in a specific vehicle possessed by a specific person, i.e., defendant. We also note that the officers did not begin the second search until about ten minutes after the weapons were discovered, and it was only at that time that an officer began filling out an inventory search form. The facts that the inventory search form was not made contemporaneously with the first search, as required by Buffalo Police Department policy, and that it was incomplete to the extent it failed to note, as required, obvious damage to the vehicle, merely underscores and corroborates our conclusion that the first search of the vehicle was pretextual. People v Cunningham, 2025 NY Slip Op 03890, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here the fact that the police did not start filling out the inventory-search form until after two  searches of the vehicle had turned up weapons demonstrated the attempt to color the warrantless search as an inventory search was a ruse.

 

, , , , ,

CLAIMANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM CONCERNING INJURIES INCCURRED WHEN WORKING FOR THE CITY; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO PRE-ACTION DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH WHEN THE CITY GAINED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant was entitled to pre-action discovery to support his allegation that the city had timely notice of his accident which would warrant leave to file a late notice of claim:

In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, “the court must consider, inter alia, whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality” … . ” ‘While the presence or absence of any single factor is not determinative, one factor that should be accorded great weight is whether the [municipality] received actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim in a timely manner’ ” … .

… In support of his application, claimant sought, inter alia, any incident reports concerning the accident and any correspondence between respondents concerning the accident. Claimant alleged that he told his employer about the incident five days after it occurred and believed that his employer notified the City of the accident at that time.

… Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that part of his application seeking pre-action discovery (see CPLR 3102 [c]). Under the circumstances of this case, claimant demonstrated that pre-suit discovery is needed in support of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim for the purpose of establishing when the City had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Wisnowski v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 03886, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: When applying for leave to file a late notice of claim, demonstrating the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim within 90 days of the accident is crucial. Here the claimant alleged his employer told the city about the accident five days after it occurred. Claimant was entitled to pre-action discovery on that issue.​

 

, , , , ,

THE SORA HEARING JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, INCREASING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL, BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) OR RAISED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE HEARING; TO DO SO VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have increased defendant’s SORA risk-level based upon information which was not included in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or raised by the People at the SORA hearing:

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine [their] risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the [RAI]” … . It is therefore improper for a court to depart from the presumptive risk level based on a ground for departure that has never been raised (see id.). Here, because defendant’s employment was not presented as a basis for departure in the RAI or by the People at the hearing, defendant was not afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to it … . We therefore reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to County Court for a new risk level determination and, if necessary, a new hearing in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights … . People v Lincoln, 2025 NY Slip Op 03930, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A defendant is entitled to notice of all the evidence which the court will rely for a SORA risk-level assessment such that the defendant has an opportunity to respond.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH A REVIEW OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS BY A PANEL OF SENIOR PROSECUTORS IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY DEMAND IS NOT PERMITTED, THE REMEDY FOR SUCH A REVIEW IS NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; RATHER THE MATTER IS REMITTED FOR A REVIEW OF THE RECORDS BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND A FINDING WHETHER THE PEOPLE EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE; IF NOT, DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, held that the trial judge should review the police disciplinary records, which had been reviewed by a panel of senior prosecutors before they were provided to the defense, to determine if any relevant records were improperly withheld. If the People did not exercise due diligence, the certificate of compliance could be illusory and defendant might be entitled to a speedy-trial dismissal. The court noted that prior caselaw has ruled that the review of police disciplinary records by a panel of senior prosecutors is not permitted:

According to defendant, reversal is required because, as in People v Sumler (228 AD3d 1350, 1354 [4th Dept 2024]) and People v Rojas-Aponte (224 AD3d 1264, 1266 [4th Dept 2024]), the People used a screening panel of senior prosecutors to determine which police disciplinary records were related to the subject matter of the case, i.e., subject to discovery as impeachment material under CPL 245.20 (1) (k), and which police disciplinary matters did not relate to the subject matter of the case and thus not subject to automatic discovery. Although the People’s use of a screening panel in this case is not permitted under our prior case law, we do not agree with defendant that he is necessarily entitled to dismissal under CPL 30.30.

Instead, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for the court to determine whether the People withheld any police disciplinary records that relate to the subject matter of the case. If the court determines that there were disciplinary records subject to disclosure that were not turned over to the defense in a timely manner, then the court must determine whether the People exercised due diligence in locating and disclosing those records … . People v Sanders, 2025 NY Slip Op 03884, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A review by senior prosecutors to determine whether police disciplinary records should be provided to the defense is not permitted.

Practice Point: Where, as here, that review process was used, the remedy is remitting the matter for a review of the records by the trial judge and a finding whether the People exercised due diligence.

 

, ,

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED QUICKLY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC IS NOT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF A REAR-END COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end collision case, determined plaintiff’s motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict finding defendant rear-driver negligent should have been granted. Plaintiff was stopped when her car was struck from behind. Defendant had struck the car directly behind plaintiff. Although there was evidence plaintiff stopped suddenly (in stop and go traffic), defendant did not offer proof of a nonnegligent explanation for the accident:

We … agree with plaintiff that the court erred in denying that part of her posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of defendant’s negligence (see generally CPLR 4404 [a]). A party is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict where there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . As relevant here, “[t]he rearmost driver in a chain-reaction collision bears a presumption of responsibility . . . , and . . . a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, [nonnegligent] explanation for the accident” … .

Here, the evidence at trial established that, at the time of the collision, plaintiff and defendant were driving in “stop-and-go” traffic during rush hour on a “wet, [d]rizzly” morning. Plaintiff testified that, at the time of the collision, she had come to a stop because the vehicle in front of her had stopped. Defendant testified that the collision occurred when the vehicle in front of her suddenly stopped; she thought the middle vehicle hit plaintiff’s vehicle first. Defendant tried to turn her vehicle to avoid the collision, but was unsuccessful and collided with the middle vehicle. The driver of the middle vehicle in the chain testified that plaintiff’s vehicle stopped suddenly. He denied initially colliding with plaintiff’s vehicle; it was only after he was hit by defendant that his vehicle collided with plaintiff’s vehicle.

In short, the undisputed evidence at trial established that defendant was the rear-most driver involved in the chain-reaction collisions and, therefore, is presumed negligent absent the proffering of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. We conclude that there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences establishing such a nonnegligent explanation based on the trial record here. Specifically, under the circumstances of this case, the ” ‘[e]vidence that plaintiff’s lead vehicle was forced to stop suddenly in [stop-and-go] traffic’ ” did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the collision sufficient to support the jury’s verdict inasmuch as ” ‘it can easily be anticipated that cars up ahead will make frequent stops in [stop-and-go] traffic’ ” Blatner v Swearengen, 2025 NY Slip Op 03880, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: The plaintiff in this rear-end collision case made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which preserved the issue of defendant’s negligence for appeal. The appellate court held defendant was negligent as a matter of law. The matter was remitted for a trial to determine proximate cause (there was a car between defendant’s and plaintiff’s cars) and, if necessary, damages.

 

, ,

IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BY THE DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE EVE OF TRIAL “IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY” BASED UPON PERCEIVED EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint on the eve of trial, in the interest of judicial economy, based on an evidentiary issue. Absent a motion by the defendants, the judge lacked the power to dismiss the action:

… [I]t is undisputed that there was no motion by defendants requesting dismissal of the complaint. Rather, defendants opposed the request by plaintiff that he be permitted to admit in evidence at trial certain medical records. Inasmuch as there was no motion for dismissal pending before the court—either on the basis that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law or based on plaintiff’s admissions—the court lacked authority to dismiss the complaint in the interest of judicial economy … . Indeed, by sua sponte dismissing the complaint before plaintiff presented any evidence, the court deprived plaintiff of an opportunity to oppose dismissal and deprived defendants of an opportunity to state the grounds that supported dismissal (see generally CPLR 4401). Additionally, we can find no legal authority (nor do the parties identify any), that permits a court to, on its own volition, dismiss a complaint on the eve of trial without any request for such relief—absent extraordinary circumstances not present here … . Although the court determined that plaintiff cannot substantiate his claims, the court nevertheless erred in dismissing the complaint on that basis moments before trial was to commence without any request for such relief from defendants. Wallace v Kinney, 2025 NY Slip Op 03879, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: On the eve of trial, absent a motion to dismiss by the defendant, a trial judge generally does not have the authority to dismiss complaint “in the interest of judicial economy” based on perceived evidentiary deficiencies.

 

, ,

THE DETECTIVE DID NOT READ THE MIRANDA RIGHTS TO DEFENDANT AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE VIDEOTAPE THAT DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE READ THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THOSE RIGHTS BEFORE HE WAIVED THEM; THE PEOPLE, THEREFORE, DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, suppressing defendant’s statements and ordering a new trial, over a dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel before speaking with the detective. The detective never explained the Miranda rights verbally. Defendant was given a paper which explained the rights. The videotape of defendant’s interview showed that defendant looked at the paper for no more than five seconds before signing it:

As can be seen from the videotape, neither the detective nor defendant read all of the Miranda rights out loud and, while they did discuss Miranda in general, the focus of the oral interaction was about the waiver of the right to counsel and not the other rights described on the Miranda form. There is no indication that defendant actually read all of the warnings or comprehended them. Indeed, the videotape establishes that defendant looked at the form for less than five seconds before he reached for the pen to sign it. Based on our review of the video, we conclude that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for defendant to have read to himself all of the Miranda warnings during the five seconds the piece of paper was in front of him before he signed. More to the point, the People failed to meet their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was adequately apprised of his relevant constitutional rights before waiving them.

Although “[t]here is no rule, statutory or otherwise, requiring that Miranda warnings be read to a suspect” … , there is no evidence in this case that defendant was actually “administered” such rights … or that such rights were “verbally outline[d]” to him … . People v Marsh, 2025 NY Slip Op 03874, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: There is no requirement that the police read the Miranda rights to a suspect out loud. But the People have the burden of proving the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights before defendant was interviewed. Here the videotape of the interview demonstrated the detective did not explain the rights verbally. Rather, the detective provided defendant with a paper explaining the rights. The videotape demonstrated defendant looked at the paper for no more than five seconds before signing it. The People therefore failed to prove a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights and suppression was warranted.

 

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