You are here: / Evidence
, ,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN POST-COLONOSCOPY INSTRUCTIONS AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF A COLON PERFORATION CONSTITUTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant doctor’s (Aronoff’s) motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. Aronoff’s failure to provide plaintiff (Raymond) with written instructions and warning after the colonoscopy, and his failure to notify plaintiff after a colon perforation was discovered constituted sufficient evidence of proximate cause:

Establishing proximate cause in medical malpractice cases requires a plaintiff to present sufficient medical evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the defendant’s departure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury … . “Generally, expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause” … . ” A plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased the injury, as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased [the] injury'” … .

Here, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that Aronoff departed from accepted standards of medical practice in failing to provide Raymond with written post-colonoscopy instructions and failing to warn him as to the signs or symptoms of which he should be aware. Aronoff also failed to contact Raymond and instruct him to go to the hospital after Aro

noff had reviewed CT scan results that revealed a colon perforation. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s findings that these deviations proximately caused Raymond’s injuries … . Gaspard v Aronoff, 2017 NY Slip Op 06258, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dentist who provided an affidavit for plaintiff was an expert, the expert raised a question of fact whether defendant departed from the accepted standard of care, and a question of fact was raised about whether plaintiff gave informed consent to the procedure. The court noted that plaintiff’s expert’s qualifications were not questioned in defendant’s reply papers. Therefore, the court should not have raised the issue on its own and used the issue to support granting  summary judgment to the defendant. With regard to informed consent, the court wrote:

“A cause of action predicated on a lack of informed consent is meant to redress a failure of the person providing the professional treatment or diagnosis to disclose to the patient such alternatives thereto and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved as a reasonable medical . . . practitioner under similar circumstances would have disclosed, in a manner permitting the patient to make a knowledgeable evaluation”… .. To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury … .

Here, the defendant failed to submit proof sufficient to establish, prima facie, that he had informed the plaintiff of the reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and, in any event, that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed … . Dyckes v Stabile, 2017 NY Slip Op 06252, Second Dept 8-23-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION  (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ISSUES NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT  (ISSUES NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant architect’s motion to set aside the verdict in this professional malpractice case should have been granted. Expert testimony was required and was not presented:

… [T]he plaintiff in this case alleged that the defendants committed professional malpractice by submitting defective plans to the New York City Department of Buildings (hereinafter the DOB), and by failing to diligently pursue the approval process and timely deal with objections raised by the DOB. Such questions are not within the competence of untutored laypersons to evaluate, as “common experience and observation offer little guidance” … .

The only expert proffered by the plaintiff conceded that he “didn’t see” the defendants’ plans, and when asked, for instance, to opine on whether the defendants’ plans “would have caused a problem” regarding the roof’s ability to bear the weight of certain HVAC equipment, he demurred, answering, “No, I only work for myself.” Moreover, the expert offered no opinion regarding the defendants’ alleged delay in getting their plans approved by the DOB. Given the absence of any expert testimony that the defendants departed from accepted architectural standards of practice … , the jury lacked any rational basis for its finding that the defendants committed professional malpractice … . Michael v He Gin Lee Architect Planner, PLLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06177, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE, EXPERT EVIDENCE, NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE, NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE (ARCHITECTS, NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION  (ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE, EXPERT EVIDENCE, NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ARCHITECTS (PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE,  NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT MALPRACTICE CASE, THE ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT SPECULATION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (CML’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because the cause of plaintiff’s fall could not be established without resort to speculation. Plaintiff alleged the her foot went under a mat which had been lifted up by a leaf blower. However she did not see anyone operating a leaf blower and did not see the mat lift up off the ground:

In a trip-and-fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall…  A plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of his or her fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation … .

Here, CML established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . The injured plaintiff testified at her deposition that when she exited the convenience store, her left foot went underneath the floor mat, causing her to trip and fall. While the injured plaintiff assumed that a leaf blower operated by an employee of CML caused the mat to lift up immediately prior to her fall, she did not see anyone in the area using a leaf blower prior to her fall and she never observed the mat lift up from the ground … . Razza v LP Petroleum Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06202, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT SPECULATION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT SPECULATION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL,  CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT SPECULATION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

​

, , , ,

DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined documents sought from a nursing home were not shielded from discovery by the Public Health Law. The documents concerned plaintiff’s decedent’s falls:

Public Health Law § 2805-j requires nursing homes, among other healthcare-related entities, to maintain a program for the identification and prevention of medical malpractice, including the establishment of a quality assurance committee which, among other things, is required to insure that information gathered pursuant to the program is utilized to review and to revise hospital policies and procedures. A New York State Department of Health regulation also requires nursing homes to establish and maintain a quality assessment and assurance program (see 10 NYCRR 415.27). Public Health Law § 2805-m and Education Law § 6527(3) both protect from disclosure documents created “by or at the behest of a quality assurance committee for quality assurance purposes” … . “It is the burden of the entity seeking to invoke the privilege to establish that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes” … . The party asserting the privilege ” is required at a minimum, to show that it has a review procedure and that the information for which the exemption is claimed was obtained or maintained in accordance with that review procedure”‘… . Records that are duplicated or used by a quality assurance committee are not necessarily privileged … .

Here, in support of its cross motion for a protective order shielding the reports from disclosure, the Nursing Home submitted, among other things, the affidavit of its administrator, a privilege log, and, in camera, the three reports it was able to locate. Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the Nursing Home’s showing was insufficient to demonstrate that the reports were generated by or at the behest of the Nursing Home’s Quality Assurance Committee. Robertson v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 06204, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW,  DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NURSING HOMES (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, PRIVILEGE,  DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that, although the common interest privilege applied to the allegedly defamatory statements, the allegations of malice were sufficient to overcome the privilege in the context of a motion to dismiss. The court noted that no evidence of malice need be presented at the motion-to-dismiss stage:

“To state a cause of action to recover damages for defamation, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant published a false statement, without privilege or authorization, to a third party, constituting fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and it must either cause special harm or constitute defamation per se”…. . “A communication made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest is protected by a qualified privilege”… . However, this “common-interest privilege” may be overcome by a showing of malice … . “To establish the malice’ necessary to defeat the privilege, the plaintiff may show either common-law malice, i.e., spite or ill will,’ or may show actual malice,’ i.e., knowledge of falsehood of the statement or reckless disregard for the truth” … .

Here, * * * the common-interest privilege applies to the allegedly defamatory communications… . However, accepting the facts as alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference …, the amended complaint sufficiently alleges malice to overcome the privilege… . “[A] plaintiff has no obligation to show evidentiary facts to support [his or her] allegations of malice on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) … . Ferrara v Bank, 2017 NY Slip Op 06161, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

DEFAMATION (COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DEFAMATION, MALICE, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))/MALICE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE OVERCOME BY ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE, NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF MALICE AT THE MOTION TO DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT))

,

FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined handguns found inside the console of an SUV were properly suppressed. The police stopped the SUV based upon a report of a shooting involving a similar vehicle. After the defendants were handcuffed and removed from the SUV, but before the eyewitnesses to shooting arrived, the police opened the center console and found a firearm. The eyewitnesses subsequently told the police the defendants were not involved in the shooting:

On January 14, 2015, just before 9:30 p.m., two police officers responded to a report of a shooting involving a white Infiniti SUV with several occupants, including one female. Approximately 15 minutes later and eight or nine blocks away from the location of the reported shooting, the officers observed an SUV matching that description parked in a strip mall parking lot, and a woman standing next to it. As the officers approached in their vehicle, the woman walked away, and the driver of the SUV began to drive away. The officers pulled the SUV over, exited their vehicle, and approached the SUV on foot, one officer on each side of it. The officers observed that the two male occupants, the defendants herein, were leaning toward each other, and each had an elbow on the SUV’s center console. The officers did not observe any contraband or firearms inside the SUV. The driver complied with the officers’ request to provide his license and registration, following which the defendants were removed from the SUV, frisked, handcuffed, and seated on a nearby curb to wait for eyewitnesses to the shooting to arrive. Additional officers arrived, one of whom approached the SUV and, noticing that the center console was slightly elevated, opened it and found a handgun. The defendants were then arrested. The eyewitnesses subsequently arrived and confirmed that the defendants were not the persons who had committed the shooting. A second handgun was later found in the center console.

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … .

Under the circumstances here, where the defendants had been removed from the SUV, the police lacked probable cause for a warrantless search of its center console, and the weapons found as a result were properly suppressed … . People v Morris, 2017 NY Slip Op 06194, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW,  FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s statement providing the searching parole officers with the combination to a safe and the guns found in the safe should have been suppressed. The search of defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment was conducted after defendant, who was present in the apartment, violated parole. Defendant was handcuffed and in his underwear when the officer asked for the combination. The officers had already found other weapons and counterfeit DVD’s in the apartment. The People unsuccessfully argued the request for the combination was not designed to elicit an incriminating response:

The question—which arose after the parole officers had found counterfeit DVDs, a box filled with daggers, and a .22 caliber revolver—had only one logical purpose: to elicit a response from the defendant disclosing the combination to the safe, which would possibly lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence, and which would link the safe to the defendant … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials as to the combination to the safe, and should have suppressed the two handguns recovered from the safe, as well as a handwritten statement the defendant later made to the police about the handguns, as fruits of the poisonous tree … . Without this evidence, there could not be legally sufficient evidence to support convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree based on those two handguns, or based on the defendant’s possession of three or more firearms. Accordingly, the convictions of those three offenses must be vacated, and those three counts of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Blacks, 2017 NY Slip Op 06186, Second Dept 8-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE ( DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letters evincing a “time of the essence” notification in the underlying real estate transaction did not constitute “documentary evidence” which would support a motion to dismiss. Although he “documentary evidence” argument was not raised below, the court properly considered it as the basis for reversal as a matter of law:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss based on documentary evidence may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law”… . “The evidence submitted in support of such motion must be documentary or the motion must be denied” … . “In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable'”… .

“[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “At the same time, [n]either affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)'” … .

Here, the letters submitted by the defendant did not constitute documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1), and should not have been relied upon by the Supreme Court as a basis for granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The only documentary evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion was the purchase agreement, which did not “utterly refute” the plaintiffs’ allegations or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the issue of whether the letters constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) can be raised for the first time on appeal because it is one of law which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if it had been raised at the proper juncture … . Feldshteyn v Brighton Beach 2012, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06160, Second Dept 8-16-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE,  (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined attorney letters did not constitute documentary evidence which would support a motion to dismiss in this insurance-coverage dispute:

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law … . In order for evidence to qualify as documentary, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable … . Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Accordingly, the letters from the attorney and claims services relied upon by [the insurer] do not constitute documentary evidence for the purposes of CPLR 3211(a)(1). Additionally, the insurance policy, which does constitute documentary evidence, did not utterly refute the factual allegations of the complaint and did not conclusively establish a defense to the claims as a matter of law. Fox Paine & Co., LLC v Houston Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 06162, Second Dept 8-16-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (EVIDENCE, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (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