You are here: / 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.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action should not have been granted. The defendant relied on the expert opinion of a physician who did not demonstrate familiarity with nursing home care and did not address the allegations that plaintiff’s decedent was left unattended on the floor after she fell and defendant’s personnel did not cooperate with the EMS personnel who attended the decedent:

“On a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a medical malpractice action, a defendant must make a prima facie showing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured by any such departure” … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … .

“Liability under the Public Health Law contemplates injury to the patient caused by the deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code or rule, subject to the defense that the facility exercised all care reasonably necessary to prevent and limit the deprivation and injury to the patient. …

… [W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . …

… [T]he defendant relied on an expert affirmation of a physician who engaged in, inter alia, the practice of cardiac critical care. This affirmation did not indicate that the physician had training in geriatric or nursing home care or what, if anything, the physician did to become familiar with the standard of care for these specialties … . … [T]he defendant’s expert failed to specifically address the allegations that the defendant’s staff members left the decedent on the floor unattended while awaiting the arrival of EMS and failed to cooperate with EMS personnel upon their arrival … . … [T]he EMS report reflected that the defendant failed to provide EMS personnel with more than mere transfer paperwork. … [T]he decedent initially could not be identified because she did not have an identification band, and EMS personnel did not know whether the patient was on blood thinners or subject to any “advance directives.” Deitch v Sands Point Ctr. for Health & Rehabilitation, 2025 NY Slip Op 02317, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the very different nature of a medical malpractice action as compared with a Public Health Law 2801-d action.

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s decedent fell at her nursing home. Defendant’s expert, a cardiac physician, did not demonstrate any familiarity with nursing home care, rendering his affidavit insufficient.

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action, the expert’s failure to address all the allegations in the pleadings renders the expert evidence insufficient.

 

, , , , , ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS NOTIFIED OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT HEARING AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT; LEVEL-THREE RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s level-three SORA risk-level assessment and remitting the matter, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant waived his right to be present at the virtual SORA risk-assessment hearing. The judge relied on an email from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision stating that defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court,” which was not sufficient proof defendant was notified of the hearing and his rights and voluntarily waived his rights. Although defense counsel did not object, the issue did not require preservation for appeal because the defendant had “no practical ability to object” to the due process error:

The record does not establish that defendant was advised of the hearing date, the right to be present or of the consequences of failing to appear and/or participate. County Court’s passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been “served” and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had “expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing” … .

Although the People submitted a July 19, 2022 email correspondence indicating that an order to produce defendant for the SORA hearing was sent by County Court to the facility where defendant was apparently incarcerated, the responsive email from a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employee stated only that defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court” for the SORA hearing, which was insufficient to establish that defendant was advised of the hearing date, his right to participate remotely or the consequences of failing to appear or participate. As such, the record fails to establish that defendant voluntarily waived his right to participate in the hearing, where County Court may have had the opportunity to assess any cognitive impairment and its impact, if any, on the appropriate risk level classification. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the appropriate risk level, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to County Court for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, preceded by the required notice (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). People v Santiago, 2025 NY Slip Op 02381, Thrid Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: Here an email from the Department of Corrections stating defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court” was deemed insufficient to prove defendant was notified of the SORA risk-level-assessment hearing and voluntarily waived his right to be present, a due process violation.

Practice Point: Although defense counsel did not object to the hearing being held in defendant’s absence, the issue need not be preserved for appeal because defendant had “no practical ability to object.”

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INCIDENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING OR INSPECTION PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this black-ice slip and fall case did not demonstrate when the area was last inspected or cleaned. Therefore the defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition. Proof of general cleaning and inspection practices is insufficient. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . “Accordingly, a property owner seeking summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case ‘has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence establishing, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged black ice condition. The defendant’s station cleaner provided only general information about his cleaning and inspection practices, and he failed to specify when he last cleaned or inspected the area where the plaintiff fell relative to the time of the accident … . Ravello v Long Is. R.R., 2025 NY Slip Op 02361, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: There are hundreds of reversals on this ground. A lack of constructive notice of a condition alleged to have caused a slip and fall can only be demonstrated by proof the area was actually cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning or inspection practices will not support a summary judgment.

 

,

A CONDITION WHICH MIGHT BE DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS CAN BECOME A “TRAP FOR THE UNWARY” WHEN A PERSON IS DISTRACTED; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WHEN HIS FOOT WAS CAUGHT IN A DEPRESSION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S FENCE AND THE SIDEWALK AS PLAINTIFF TRIED TO SEPARATE TWO FIGHTING DOGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted on the ground the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff was trying to separate two fighting dogs when his foot was caught in a depression between defendant’s fence and the sidewalk. The depression was about a foot wide and five or six inches deep. The court noted that a condition that might ordinarily be deemed open and obvious can be a “trap or the unwary” when a person is distracted:

“Property owners have a common-law duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition, but there is no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” … . However, “[w]hether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . “[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances surrounding the accident. In addition, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged defective condition … . Niyazov v Ditmas Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02349, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: This decision presents an example of when an “open and obvious” condition can be deemed a “trap for the unwary” for someone who is distracted. Here plaintiff was trying to separate two fighting dogs when his foot became caught in a five-or-six-inch-deep depression between defendant’s fence and the sidewalk.​

 

,

BECAUSE THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IS DEPENDENT UPON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH INFERENCES MUST BE DRAWN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS USUALLY NOT APPROPRIATE; HERE A GARAGE DOOR CLOSED OR FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was not a proper basis for granting plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff was injured when a garage door at defendant’s vehicle-repair shop closed on her as she left the customer waiting area. Plaintiff could have used an exterior door rather than the open garage door:

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident” … . It requires evidence of an event which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . “Since the circumstantial evidence allows but does not require the jury to infer that the defendant was negligent, res ipsa loquitur evidence does not ordinarily or automatically entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment, even if the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence is unrefuted” … . Summary judgment on the issue of liability should only be granted “in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases” where “the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of [the] defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not establish, by sufficiently convincing circumstantial proof, “that the inference of [the] defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Specifically, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficiently convincing circumstantial proof that the garage door and its mechanism were within the defendant’s exclusive control, and that the accident was not due to any fault on the part of the plaintiff … . “‘In those cases where conflicting inferences may be drawn, choice of inference must be made by the jury'” … . Hafeez v TT of Freeport, 2025 NY Slip Op 02327, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof requirements for liability under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.​

Practice Point: Because the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is dependent upon circumstantial evidence, summary judgment is rarely appropriate even where plaintiff’s evidence is unrefuted.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this slip and fall did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the flower petals on the floor which caused plaintiff to slip and fall. Therefore defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. A lack of constructive notice can be demonstrated by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning practices is not sufficient to raise a question of fact on the issue:

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case must establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the fall or have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to remedy it … . “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . In order to meet its prima facie burden “on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . “Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged condition … . The defendant did not submit any evidence with respect to specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question “or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed” … . The deposition testimony and affidavit submitted by the defendant as to general cleaning procedures were insufficient to establish lack of constructive notice … . Lisker v Vue Catering, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02196, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: This genre of reversals appeared monthly for many years. Now these decisions are few and far between. The key issue: to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall a defendant must prove the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning schedules is not enough.​

 

,

UNLIKE A LEVEL-ONE OR LEVEL-TWO STREET STOP, A LEVEL-THREE STREET STOP JUSTIFIES POLICE PURSUIT, EVEN IF THE REASON FOR THE STOP, HERE AN APPARENT IMPENDING ASSAULT, WAS DISSIPATED BY THE SUSPECT’S FLIGHT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the appellate division, determined the police were justified in pursuing the defendant after a level three street stop, even though, at the time of the pursuit, the initial reason for the stop, an apparent impending attack on a pedestrian, had dissipated:

We have previously held that an individual’s flight from a level one or two police encounter, without more, does not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to pursue them (see People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1058 [1993]; People v May, 81 NY2d 725, 728 [1992]; see generally People v De Bour 40 NY2d 210 [1976]). We now hold that when a suspect flees during a lawful level three stop founded on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police may pursue the suspect.

… At the suppression hearing, Officer Kyle Eisenhauer of the Rochester Police Department testified that, on the night of the arrest, he was in uniform in an unmarked patrol vehicle with his partner, Officer Jeremy Nellist. The two were driving behind a sedan when a woman on the sidewalk threw a glass bottle at the sedan, which then came to a stop in the middle of the street. Defendant exited the driver’s door of the sedan and “in a very aggressive manner” began yelling at the woman and approached her with clenched fists. According to Eisenhauer, “[i]t appeared [that defendant] was . . . about to attack” the woman. Eisenhauer and Nellist exited their patrol car and told defendant to stop, and defendant “stopped and looked in [their] direction.” The uniformed officers were about 25 feet away from defendant without their guns drawn. Defendant “began to back away, and then quickly turned and began digging in the front of his waistband and running” away from the officers, leaving his car in the middle of the street with the driver’s door open. The officers followed in pursuit. * * *

We reject the notion that a suspect can legally flee a level three stop so long as their flight dissipates the reasonable suspicion of the crime that initially gave rise to the stop. People v Cleveland, 2025 NY Slip Op 02144, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: If the police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time of a level three street stop, they may pursue the fleeing suspect, even if the initial reason for the stop (here an apparent impending assault) is dissipated by the flight. In contrast, flight from a level one or level two street stop does not justify pursuit.

 

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