You are here: / Evidence
,

RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the disciplinary determination must be annulled and expunged because the hearing officer did not independently assess the credibility of an informant:

​

“A disciplinary determination may be based upon hearsay confidential information provided that it is sufficiently detailed and probative for the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of the informant’s reliability”… . Here, the Hearing Officer, without informing petitioner, interviewed the correction officer who investigated the incident and authored the misbehavior report about the information obtained from the confidential informant. Although the correction officer attested to the informant’s past reliability, the substance of the information gleaned from the informant was too vague and insufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to independently assess the reliability or credibility of the informant … . Because the confidential information was instrumental in finding petitioner guilty of the charges, the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of Fields v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 06697, Third Dept 9-28-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (in part) Supreme Court, determined one of defendant’s motions for a directed verdict was premature because plaintiff had not finished presenting proof, a second motion for a directed verdict was properly granted based upon admissions made by plaintiff’s witness, and a cross-claim based upon an indemnification agreement failed because the agreement purported to indemnify a party for its own negligence (in violation of the General Obligations Law). With respect to the premature motion for a directed verdict, the court wrote:

​

“Any party may move for judgment with respect to a cause of action or issue upon the ground that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue, or at any time on the basis of admissions.”

In interpreting this provision, this Court has held that the requirement that a party opposing a directed verdict motion must have closed its presentation of evidence “must be strictly enforced” (Griffin v Clinton Green S., LLC, 98 AD3d 41, 46 [1st Dept 2012]). Further, we have held that “the grant of a dismissal [pursuant to CPLR 4401] prior to the close of the opposing party’s case will be reversed as premature, even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . This Court in Griffin emphasized the importance of each party being “afford[ed] . . . a day in court” … . * * *

​

[Defendant] essentially asks us to endorse a system whereby a party can make a directed verdict motion at any time during trial, so long as the party opposing the motion has put in some unspecified quantum of evidence that, though it may not have been everything the opposing party intended to put in, was sufficient for the trial court to determine that there were no issues of fact and it could decide for the movant as a matter of law. We decline to do so. 11 Essex St. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 06709, First Dept 9-28-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DIRECTED VERDICT, MOTION FOR  (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT  (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the People did not demonstrate defendant understood he had a right to an attorney at the time he made statement, even if he could not afford one. Both of his statements should have been suppressed:

​

… [T]he People failed to establish that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights before giving oral and written statements to a detective at the precinct. In a videotaped statement to the prosecutor, made several hours after the statements to the detective, defendant said, “I cannot pay for a lawyer, why do I write yes or no.” The prosecutor then said, “[D]o you understand if you can’t, the Court will give you one?,” to which defendant responded, “[S]o I put no.” After the prosecutor reread the warnings defendant stated, “[Y]es, I need to have a lawyer . . . I cannot pay a lawyer.” The prosecutor next asked, “[B]ut do you understand that one will be provided if you cannot pay,” and defendant again stated “yes, but I can’t pay for a lawyer.” Finally, the prosecutor told defendant, “[O]kay, so you can write yes’ if you understand, and no’ if you don’t understand,” and defendant said, “[Y]es, I do understand.” Based on this exchange, the court correctly suppressed defendant’s videotaped statement. Given defendant’s failure to comprehend that he had the right to an attorney at the time of his statements if he could not afford one, it is evident that defendant’s previous statement to the detective should also be suppressed … .

We find that the error was not harmless, because there is a reasonable possibility that it contributed to defendant’s guilty plea … . People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 06629, First Dept 9-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/MIRANDA WARNINGS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))

 

, ,

FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the failure to file a predicate felony statement required resentencing, despite the failure to preserve the issue by an appropriate motion:

Defendant contends, among other things, that the resentence is invalid because a predicate felony statement was not filed in accordance with CPL 400.21 (2) before he was sentenced as a second felony drug offender … . Although this claim has not been preserved for our review due to defendant’s failure to make an appropriate motion … , under the particular circumstances presented, we exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to take corrective action … . The People concede and the record reveals that a predicate felony statement was never filed as is required by CPL 400.21 (2). In addition, there is no indication that defendant had notice that he would be sentenced as a second felony drug offender when he admitted to the probation violations or at resentencing. Consequently, defendant did not have an opportunity to contest his prior convictions. In view of this, the resentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for resentencing … . People v Fenner, 2017 NY Slip Op 06483, Third Dept 9-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PREDICATE FELONY, SENTENCING, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT, PRESERVATION, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT (FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))

,

(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that it was error to allow the prosecutor to cross-examine a defense witness about the witness’s gang affiliation. Gang membership had no relationship to the charges:

​

The Supreme Court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine a defense witness regarding her possible gang affiliations since there was no connection between gang membership and the alleged crime … . It was also improper to allow the prosecutor to introduce extrinsic evidence to impeach that witness’s credibility when she denied being affiliated with a gang … . However, because there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that these errors contributed to the defendant’s convictions, the errors were harmless … . People v Chinloy, 2017 NY Slip Op 06450, Second Dept 9-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW ((HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/GANGS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELATED TO THE GRAND LARCENY CHARGE (STEALING REAL PROPERTY), HOWEVER SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY RE THE FORGED DEED CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined charges relating to a forged deed were not protected the by the transactional immunity afforded grand jury witnesses. Defendant had testified before a grand jury about a burglary at real property she claimed to own. Subsequently defendant was charged with grand larceny (stealing the real property), possessing a forged deed, filing the forged deed and perjury (in the grand jury proceeding). The Second Department determined the grand larceny count was properly dismissed because it directly related to defendant’s testimony before the grand jury (claiming  that she owned the real property). However, the charges forged deed charges were not related to her grand jury testimony and therefore those charges were reinstated:

​

The defendant’s grand jury testimony that she was the owner of the real property would be relevant to establishing the defendant’s alleged intent to deprive the rightful owners of the real property … . Thus, the defendant testified to the “transaction, matter or thing” for which she stands indicted … , and her testimony may “tend to a conviction when combined with proof of other circumstances which others may supply” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly found that the defendant’s testimony conferred immunity upon her from prosecution of grand larceny in the second degree. * * *

… [A]lthough the defendant testified that she owned the real property, she did not testify how she purportedly came into ownership of the real property. Her claim of ownership is not relevant to establishing her knowledge that the deed to the real property was forged, her intent to use that deed to defraud another person, her presentment of the deed to the City Register, or her belief that the deed would be accepted for filing … , and thus, does not “tend to a conviction when combined with proof of other circumstances which others may supply” … . Under these circumstances, the defendant was not entitled to immunity from prosecution for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and counts two and three of the indictment must be reinstated. People v O’Neal, 2017 NY Slip Op 06461, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (IMMUNITY, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELATED TO THE GRAND LARCENY CHARGE (STEALING REAL PROPERTY), HOWEVER SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY RE THE FORGED DEED CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IMMUNITY, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY,  DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELATED TO THE GRAND LARCENY CHARGE (STEALING REAL PROPERTY), HOWEVER SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY RE THE FORGED DEED CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/GRAND JURY (IMMUNITY, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELATED TO THE GRAND LARCENY CHARGE (STEALING REAL PROPERTY), HOWEVER SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY RE THE FORGED DEED CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE HER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELATED TO THE GRAND LARCENY CHARGE (STEALING REAL PROPERTY), HOWEVER SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY RE THE FORGED DEED CHARGES (SECOND DEPT))

,

(HARMLESS) ERROR TO SHOW THE INJURED CHILD TO THE JURY IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, THE EXTENT OF THE LONG-TERM INJURIES WAS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that it was (harmless) error to show the jury the injured child in this shaken baby case because the extent of the long-term effects of the injury was not an element of the crime:

​

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing the People to display the injured child to the jury during the mother’s testimony, since the extent of the child’s long-term injuries was not an element of the crime … , and such display only served to prejudice the defense by arousing the emotions of the jury … . Nevertheless, the error was harmless … . Given the extensive and uncontroverted medical evidence supporting the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome and that the child’s injuries could have only occurred when the child was with the defendant, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Moreover, there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error … . People v Narine, 2017 NY Slip Op 06460, Second Dept 9-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW ((HARMLESS) ERROR TO SHOW THE INJURED CHILD TO THE JURY IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, THE EXTENT OF THE LONG-TERM INJURIES WAS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO SHOW THE INJURED CHILD TO THE JURY IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, THE EXTENT OF THE LONG-TERM INJURIES WAS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME (SECOND DEPT))/SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO SHOW THE INJURED CHILD TO THE JURY IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, THE EXTENT OF THE LONG-TERM INJURIES WAS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME (SECOND DEPT))

,

(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in affirming the conviction of defendants as part of a large scale heroin distribution operation, determined it was error to allow the lead detective to explain to the jury the roles played by the persons recorded by the wiretaps. It was also error to admit the wiretap orders into evidence. Given the overwhelming evidence, however, the errors were deemed harmless:

​

… [W]hile “it was error to permit the prosecutor to elicit testimony [from the investigating detective] as to the roles played by the individuals overheard in the phone calls[ ] and the relationships among them, . . . and the meanings of certain case-specific’ terms that he had discovered in the course of the investigation” … , the error was harmless, “as the proof of the defendant’s commission of the charged crimes was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that, but for the error, the verdict . . . would have been less adverse'” … .

The County Court also improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence the wiretap court orders. Although the court orders were relevant, as authorizing the wiretapping that led to a large part of the People’s evidence, and their admission had a tendency to prove the existence of a material fact, i.e., that the wiretapping was authorized … , that same fact could have been established without the prejudice they caused. Nevertheless, here, too, the error was harmless. People v Guzman, 2017 NY Slip Op 06454, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW ((HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/WIRETAPS (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EAVESDROPPING (CRIMINAL LAW, (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversing defendant’s conviction for possession of a weapon, determined the jury should have been instructed on the innocent possession of a weapon defense. There was evidence that the defendant had taken the pistol away from decedent, who had struck him with it. Defendant walked away with the pistol. Three minutes later defendant was grabbed from behind by a man who was with the decedent. There was evidence the defendant shot the man and the decedent. The jury was instructed on the justification defense and acquitted the defendant of manslaughter:

​

When this evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, nothing he did or failed to do in the very brief interval between excusably obtaining the pistol and being confronted by the decedent and his companions constituted “us[ing the pistol] in a dangerous manner” … . Given the justification defense, which, as the court correctly determined, warranted a justification charge, the fact that defendant shot the decedent did not constitute a “dangerous use” barring the court from giving a temporary lawful possession charge. Courts have found that the firing of shots did not negate a defendant’s entitlement to a temporary lawful possession instruction where the shooting was justified and the possession was otherwise lawful. People v Bonilla, 2017 NY Slip Op 06405, First Dept 9-5-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver’s (Kostadinov’s) motion for summary judgment in this bicycle-car accident case should not have been granted. Kostadinov did not eliminate triable questions of fact about his comparative negligence:

Here, Kostadinov failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since the evidence submitted in support of his motion failed to establish that he was free from fault in the happening of the accident, or that the alleged negligence of the plaintiff and Karczewski were the sole proximate causes of the accident … . Specifically, the deposition testimony of all of the parties, submitted by Kostadinov in support of his motion, revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred (see id. at 934) and as to whether the impact between the plaintiff’s bicycle and Karczewski’s vehicle was a foreseeable consequence of Kostadinov reversing his vehicle against the flow of traffic within the subject intersection given the traffic conditions existing at the time of the accident … . Searless v Karczewski, 2017 NY Slip Op 06393, Second Dept 8-30-17

NEGLIGENCE (BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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