You are here: / Evidence
,

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

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

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

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

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

 

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

 

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME, WHICH APPARENTLY ALLEGED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NEGLIGENTLY EXPOSED TO COVID-19, WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT” OR THE “FEDERAL PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY ACT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the wrongful death complaint, which apparently alleged, among other things, decedent was negligently exposed to COVID-19 in defendant nursing home, should not have been dismissed. The Fourth Department held that the defendants submissions did not demonstrate the COVID-19-releated immunity provided by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) and the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) (42 USC § 247d-6d) precluded the lawsuit:

… [D]efendants’ submission of the affidavit of Robert G. Hurlbut, the administrator of the facility during the relevant time period, does not conclusively establish that the act or omission constituting defendants’ alleged negligence occurred in the course of arranging for or providing health care services, and it likewise does not conclusively establish that the treatment of decedent was impacted by the health care facility’s or health care professionals’ decisions or activities in response to or resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak … . We therefore conclude that defendants’ submissions did not conclusively establish the three requirements for immunity under the EDTPA … . …

With respect to the PREP Act * * * plaintiff alleged … that defendants failed to properly sterilize equipment to prevent the spread of infection, failed to follow their own infection control practices, and failed to maintain and utilize the proper personal protective equipment as required by federal law. Plaintiff further alleged that decedent suffered a range of injuries from defendants’ negligence, including pressure ulcers, head injuries, and lacerations, in addition to the contraction of COVID-19. Defendants’ submissions failed to establish that decedent’s injuries arose from the use of an approved countermeasure under the PREP Act … . Sweatman v The Hurlbut, 2025 NY Slip Op 02522, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: In the context of a motion to dismiss the complaint, which apparently alleged, among other things, that plaintiff’s decedent was negligently exposed to COVID-19 in defendant nursing home, the immunity provided by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) and the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) (42 USC § 247d-6d) was not demonstrated to preclude the lawsuit.

 

, ,

MOTHER’S ALLEGATIONS OF CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING ON HER CUSTODY PETITION; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s custody petition should not have been summarily dismissed without a hearing:

“A hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody [or visitation] order” … . Rather, “[t]he petitioner must make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing on the issue whether the existing custody [and visitation] order should be modified” … . “In order to survive a motion to dismiss and warrant a hearing, a petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation must contain factual allegations of a change in circumstances warranting modification to ensure the best interests of the child” … . “When faced with such a motion, ‘the court must give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged therein as true, accord the nonmoving party the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts fit within a cognizable legal theory’ ” … .

… The mother alleged that the father had repeatedly and consistently neglected to exercise his right to supervised visitation and had not seen or spoken with the children in over two years … .

… The mother further alleged that, subsequent to entry of the prior order, the older child newly disclosed that, in addition to the previously known sexual abuse to which he and the younger child had been subjected by their paternal uncle at the father’s home, the father too had sexually abused him.

… [T]he mother adequately alleged a change in circumstances based on information—which she received directly from child protective services personnel from the county where the father resides—that the father and his paramour had engaged in conduct that led to the removal of the father’s other children from his care … . Matter of Catherine M.C. v Matthew P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 02480, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The most common basis for a Family-Court reversal is the failure to hold a hearing.

 

, ,

HERE THE EVIDENCE WAS PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial on the murder and attempted murder charges, determined the judge should have given the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction:

“[A] trial court must grant a defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant’s guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence . . . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, such a charge need not be given” … .

The People argue that certain statements made by defendant provided some direct evidence of defendant’s guilt of those charges. A defendant’s “statement[s are] direct evidence only if [they] constitute a relevant admission of guilt” … . Here, we conclude that the statements identified by the People were not admissions of guilt; rather, because they “merely includ[ed] inculpatory acts from which a jury may or may not infer guilt, the statement[s were] circumstantial and not direct evidence” … . The People thus failed to present ” ‘both direct and circumstantial evidence of . . . defendant’s guilt’ ” that would have negated the need for a circumstantial evidence charge … . People v Rodriguez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02454, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: Where the evidence against a defendant is both circumstantial and direct, a request for a circumstantial-evidence jury instruction is properly denied. Where the evidence is purely circumstantial, the request must be granted.​

Practice Point: A defendant’s statements are direct evidence only if they constitute an admission of guilt. Where, as here, the statements include inculpatory acts from which guilt can be inferred the statements constitute circumstantial evidence.

 

,

ALTHOUGH ALL JUSTICES AGREED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ILLUSORY, THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THE NAMES OF WITNESSES CAPTURED ON A VIDEO (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the People’s certificate of compliance (COC) was not illusory and, therefore, the speedy trial statute was not violated. The concurrence agreed the COC was not illusory, but argued the People should have ascertained and turned over the names of witnesses which were depicted in a video:

… [W]ith respect to defendant’s claim that the People failed to turn over the names and contact information of several witnesses who were depicted on surveillance footage inside the convenience store when defendant was arrested, CPL 245.20 (1) (c) provides in relevant part that the People are required to disclose “[t]he names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto.” The People are not, however, required “to ascertain the existence of witnesses not known to the police or another law enforcement agency” … . The record shows that the People did not know or have in their possession the names of those witnesses with the exception of one witness whose name they learned just prior to the scheduled trial. The court thus properly determined that the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to ascertain the existence of the discovery materials … .

From the concurrence (Justice Whalen):

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the People had no obligation to make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the names and contact information of several witnesses who were depicted on surveillance footage inside the convenience store when defendant was arrested. Although the People are not required to “ascertain the existence of witnesses” not known to law enforcement … , here the record establishes that, at the time their discovery obligation under CPL article 245 arose, the People possessed knowledge that several of the witnesses depicted on the surveillance footage had “evidence or information relevant to any offense charged” … . Specifically, the People possessed the statements of the store owner and the victim, as well as the police report from the arresting officer, each of which reflects that just prior to defendant’s arrest, the depicted store employees tackled defendant to the ground, locked the door, and waited for police to arrive. Inasmuch as there is no plausible argument that the store employees who held defendant down after an attempted robbery did not “have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged” … , the People were obligated to “make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain” … the “names and adequate contact information for [those] persons” … . In my opinion, the majority, in concluding otherwise, is conflating the statutory requirement that the People possess knowledge of the “existence of witnesses” … with knowledge of the names of witnesses. People v Burrows, 2025 NY Slip Op 02436, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The concurrence argued the majority conflated the fact that the People need not ascertain the existence of witnesses they are not aware of with the obligation to ascertain the names of witnesses of which the People are aware.

 

, , , , , ,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS “NEGLIGENT USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE,” “FALSE ARREST,” AND “UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT” ACTION STEMMING FROM THE STREET STOP, SHOOTING AND ARREST OF THE PLAINTIFF; THE DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined conflicting evidence precluded summary judgment in this civil action stemming from the street stop and arrest of the plaintiff. Although plaintiff pled guilty, which usually forecloses any argument that the arrest was not supported by probable cause, here evidence submitted the defendant transit authority raised a question of fact about probable cause. The action alleged the negligent use of excessive force (plaintiff was shot through the windshield of his vehicle), false arrest and unlawful imprisonment:

Excessive force claims are evaluated ” ‘under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard’ ” … . * * *

“Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide” … .

” ‘The fact that a person whom a police officer attempts to arrest resists, threatens, or assaults the officer no doubt justifies the officer’s use of some degree of force, but it does not give the officer license to use force without limit. The force used by the officer must be reasonably related to the nature of the resistance and the force used, threatened, or reasonably perceived to be threatened, against the officer’ ” … . …

Though “[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the [false imprisonment cause of action]” … , the issue of probable cause is “generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury, and should ‘be decided by the court only where there is no real dispute as to the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn surrounding the arrest’ ” … . Thomas v Niagara Frontier Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02433, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an analysis of “negligent use of excessive force,” “false arrest,” and “unlawful imprisonment” causes of action at the summary-judgment stage, in the face of conflicting evidence.​

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this breach of contract action, determined that, although the defendant’s attorney-affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of the documents and relied on those documents in opposing defendant’s motion:

Supreme Court improvidently concluded that defendant’s documentary evidence was not admissible for purposes of its motion. An attorney’s affirmation “‘may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence,’ so long as the [affirmation] ‘constitute[s] a proper foundation for the admission of the records'” … . The court was correct that defendant’s attorney, in her affirmation, did not lay a foundation for the admission of the records, such as her personal knowledge or her certification of the documents as true and complete copies of the originals. However, plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of any of the documents annexed to the attorney’s affirmation … and relied on the same documents in opposition to defendant’s motion … . AWL Indus., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: An attorney affidavit can be used as a vehicle for the admission of documentary evidence if the affidavit lays a proper foundation.

Practice Point: Here, although the defendant’s attorney affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because the plaintiff did not object to them and relied on them in opposition to the defendant’s motion.

 

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