You are here: / Evidence
,

CAUSE OF FALL SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated the cause of her fall with circumstantial evidence. The defense motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

” In a slip 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' without engaging in speculation” … . In a circumstantial evidence case, however, “[the] plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant's negligence . . . , [but the plaintiff's] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

Here, plaintiff consistently testified that her shoe became caught on a crack in the step, which caused her to fall. Although there were no witnesses to the fall, and plaintiff could not remember seeing the crack at the time of the accident, she testified that the fall occurred in the immediate vicinity of a crack in the step, as revealed by a photograph in the record, “thereby rendering any other potential cause of [her] fall sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . Rinallo v St. Casimir Parish & Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 03323, 4th Dept 4-29-16


IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED NEW TRIAL.

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial in a personal injury action because defense counsel violated rules of evidence re: impeachment with collateral matters. Defense counsel improperly introduced evidence of plaintiff's drug test results and improperly informed the jury of prior lawsuits brought by plaintiff:

It is well settled that a cross-examiner at trial is “bound by the answers of the witness to questions on collateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility” … , and extrinsic evidence cannot be used to impeach a witness's credibility after the witness has provided an answer with which the cross-examiner is unsatisfied … . Here, defense counsel asked plaintiff during cross-examination whether she had failed an employment-related drug test, a collateral issue relevant only to plaintiff's credibility. In response, plaintiff testified that the test result was a “false positive” that was proved false upon retesting. Defense counsel then violated the collateral evidence rule when she not only referred to a lack of evidence supporting plaintiff's assertion, but introduced the drug test result in evidence in an attempt to impeach plaintiff's credibility … .

The impact of that improper conduct was compounded when defense counsel thereafter questioned defendant's medical expert, over plaintiff's objection, about “drug use history” notations in plaintiff's medical records that, according to the expert, raised questions as to plaintiff's “credibility.” * * *

Finally, despite the court's pretrial ruling precluding defendants from questioning plaintiff about a personal injury claim she had filed in connection with a prior accident, defense counsel, over objection, asked plaintiff if she had been involved in any “legal action” related to her “neck and/or back condition.” Because evidence of prior accidents and lawsuits related thereto “may not [be used to] . . . demonstrate that plaintiff is litigious and therefore unworthy of belief” … , it was error for the court to allow that questioning. In our view, the improper attacks on plaintiff's credibility, viewed as a whole, denied plaintiff a fair trial. Dunn v Garrett, 2016 NY Slip Op 03283, 4th Dept 4-29-16


,

STATEMENT IN HOSPITAL RECORD ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF A BUSINESS RECORD AND AS A PARTY ADMISSION, STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial on liability because a statement attributed to the plaintiff in a hospital report should not have been excluded. Plaintiff alleged she was struck by defendant's vehicle as she walked behind it. The statement attributed to plaintiff indicated only that she fell in the road. The nurse who wrote the statement would have testified the plaintiff made the statement. The statement was admissible as part of a business record (hospital record) because it was germane to treatment or diagnosis. The statement was also admissible as a party admission:

“Such records are admissible if the proponent offers either foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c)” … . The defendants should have been permitted to call the nurse to testify to establish a foundation for the admission of the entry from the hospital record as a business record. A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient … . Further, “if the entry is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'” … . In this case, the nurse, had she been permitted to testify, would have provided the evidence connecting the plaintiff to the entry, and, since the entry was inconsistent with the plaintiff's position at trial, which was that she was struck by the vehicle, the entry would be admissible as a party admission. Berkovits v Chaaya, 2016 NY Slip Op 03131, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN WHICH DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs' motion to set aside the defense verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted. Defendant acknowledged she turned right coming out of a parking lot but was looking to her left. Defendant struck the pedestrian plaintiffs. The jury found defendant was negligent but that her negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The court noted that the plaintiffs may also have been negligent, but there was no reasonable view of the evidence in which defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause:

… [T]he jury's determination that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident did not rest upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . The issues of negligence and proximate cause are so inextricably interwoven in this case that the jury's finding that the defendant was negligent cannot be reconciled with its finding that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident … . That is, the defendant admitted that she turned right out of a parking lot while looking to her left despite the fact that she knew that pedestrians crossed 71st Avenue at that location to access the parking lot from which she was exiting. Notwithstanding any negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, the defendant's negligence in driving in one direction while looking in the other direction and thereby failing to see pedestrians who were there to be seen in the middle of the street was a substantial, not a slight or trivial, cause of this accident … . Accordingly, although the plaintiffs may also have been negligent, no fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury's finding that the defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Cruz v Jeffrey, 2016 NY Slip Op 03134, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

DEFENDANT RAISED SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL DISPUTES ABOUT THE EFFICACY AND LEGALITY OF METHODS USED BY THE POLICE TO IDENTIFY HIS IP ADDRESS AND THE CONTENTS OF HIS COMPUTER, SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS REQUIRED.

The Second Department, in this child pornography case, determined Supreme Court should not have denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his computer without a hearing. The defense motion papers raised substantive factual disputes concerning the efficacy and legality of methods and software used by the police to identify defendant's IP address and the contents of defendant's computer, issues which can only be resolved by a hearing:

In determining a motion to suppress evidence, the court “is required to grant a hearing if the defendant raise[s] a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue' of whether evidence was obtained in a constitutionally permissible manner” … . “[T]he sufficiency of [a] defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” … .

In his omnibus motion, the defendant contended that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The defendant's motion included detailed factual allegations regarding the functioning of peer-to-peer networks and, based on these assertions, challenged the detective's contention in the warrant application that he was able to identify child pornography files that actually existed on the defendant's computer. In his separate suppression motion, the defendant raised a factual dispute, inter alia, as to whether the use of certain software or other activity by the investigating detective prior to securing the warrant constituted a search of his computer. People v Worrell, 2016 NY Slip Op 03206, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


,

POLICE OFFICER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT MET BY POINTING TO GAPS IN OTHER PARTY’S PROOF.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dismissal of plaintiff police officer's negligence cause of action did not mandate dismissal of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action. Plaintiff alleged his slip and fall injury resulted from defendant's failure to comply with specified regulations. In its motion for summary judgment, defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate the regulations were not breached. The court noted that simply pointing to gaps in plaintiff's proof is not enough in the summary judgment context:

…[T]he dismissal of the plaintiff's common-law negligence cause of action was not fatal, as a matter of law, to his General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. In order to recover under General Municipal Law § 205-e, the statute does not mandate that the plaintiff establish general negligence, but rather, negligence of any person in “failing to comply” with the requirements of, inter alia, a regulation … , or ” negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties'” … . Furthermore, while the plaintiff alleged in his consolidated complaint that the defendants violated certain identified regulations, the defendants failed to affirmatively demonstrate in their submissions to the Supreme Court that these regulations were not breached. A defendant's prima facie burden on a motion for summary judgment cannot be met by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's case … . Vaughn v Veolia Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02985, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


, ,

IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENDANT, WAS ERROR, UNDER THE FACTS, IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR.

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the SORA court's reliance on the victim's grand jury testimony, which was not provided to defense counsel, did not deprive defendant of due process of law. 20 points were assessed based upon the victim's helplessness. At the grand jury, the victim testified she was asleep (i.e., helpless) when the abuse began. Because evidence disclosed to the defendant amply notified defendant of the victim's claim to have been asleep, any error in relying on the undisclosed grand jury minutes was harmless:

The Court of Appeals was recently presented with the issue of whether a defendant's due process rights were violated when the hearing court relied, in part, upon grand jury minutes that were not disclosed to the defense in reaching the defendant's SORA risk level determination (see People v Baxin, 26 NY3d 6). The Court found that “[g]iven that [the] defendant is entitled to broad discovery of the evidence that is used against him in order to be able to defend himself . . . the failure to disclose the grand jury minutes was a due process violation” … . Significantly, the Court concluded that, given the overwhelming evidence which was disclosed to the defendant in support of the same risk factor, the error was harmless … . It further recognized that “[t]his is not to say that grand jury minutes must be disclosed to the defendant in every SORA proceeding as a matter of course. It remains within the hearing court's discretion to limit the release of such minutes” … .

Guided by these principles, even assuming that the defendant should have had disclosure of the subject grand jury minutes, as in Baxin, any error in failing to disclose them was harmless. There was overwhelming, unchallenged evidence, which provided the requisite clear and convincing evidence supporting the assessment of 20 points … . The record on appeal reveals that the defendant was amply notified through statements contained in the case summary, the presentence report, and other disclosed evidence of the victim's version of the facts and, specifically, her account that she was asleep when the abuse began. Indeed, defense counsel specifically challenged the assessment of points for physical helplessness based upon the victim's account of being asleep when the sexual abuse began. The portion of the victim's grand jury testimony relied upon by the SORA Court, namely, that the victim was asleep at the beginning of the incident, is the exact account contained in the case summary, which was fully disclosed to the defendant. Under these circumstances, the victim's grand jury testimony was cumulative to the disclosed evidence … . People v Wells, 2016 NY Slip Op 02978, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


,

PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF UNDUE SUGGESTIVENESS IN THE PHOTO ARRAY AND LINE UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

The Second Department, over a substantial dissent, determined defendant's motion to suppress photo array and line up identification evidence should have been granted. The People did not meet their burden to demonstrate the lack of undue suggestiveness. The photo arrays were not preserved and certain detectives who participated in the photo array and line up identification were not called as witnesses at the Wade hearing:

At the suppression hearing, [detective] McDermott testified that he did not preserve the photo arrays viewed by [witness] Seeram because the computer that displayed those arrays was not attached to a printer. He stated that after Seeram identified the defendant from a photo array, McDermott used another computer to print out a single photograph of the defendant using the defendant's NYSID number, and then showed that photogaph to Seeram. It cannot be said that this testimony was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness. McDermott did not explain why he did not attach a printer to the computer Seeram was using, or why he did not attempt to reconstruct the photo array (see id.). Moreover, the single photograph was not signed by Seeram, and was dated January 9, 2006, the day following Seerem's photographic identification procedure.

Further, the People failed to produce the detective who conducted [witness] Clyne's photographic identification procedure, or the detective who conducted Seeram's lineup identification procedure. Contrary to our dissenting colleague's determination, McDermott did not conduct either of those procedures, and, therefore, could not provide competent evidence as to the circumstances thereof and what, if anything, transpired during those identification procedures… . People v McDonald, 2016 NY Slip Op 03017, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


,

ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNRELATED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined photographs depicting defendants making gang signs and holding a weapon, as well as Facebook messages sent by a defendant boasting about firing weapons should not have been admitted in this weapons possession trial. Neither the pictures nor the messages related to the weapon defendants' were alleged to have possessed, which was found on the backseat of a car. The prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value:

There was no evidence that the gun in the photographs had anything to do with the gun found in the car or with any other criminal activity. … The mere fact that defendants were in possession of a different gun in the past is not probative of whether they knowingly possessed the weapon they were charged with possessing. Nor are the photographs probative of defendants' intent to unlawfully use the weapon found in the car. They merely show defendants displaying a gun, and do not depict any unlawful use of the weapon. * * *

The People concede that [defendant] was not referring to the charged crime in [the Facebook] messages, but to an entirely different incident that occurred months later. Thus, these messages are far too attenuated to have any probative value as to [defendant's] knowledge of the gun found in the car or his intent to use that weapon on the day of the incident … . People v Singleton, 2016 NY Slip Op 02945, 1st Dept 4-19-16


, ,

MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed the pleadings to be amended to conform to the evidence at trial. The trial evidence indicated the contract at issue was based upon mutual mistake rather than deliberate misrepresentation. The motion to amend the pleadings to allege mutual mistake was properly granted and the contract was properly rescinded on that ground:

 

The burden was upon defendant, as the party opposing plaintiff's motion, to establish that it was “hindered in the preparation of [its] case or . . . prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] position” … . That burden cannot be met when the difference between the original pleading and the evidence results from “proof admitted at the instance or with the acquiescence of [the opposing] party” .. . Here, the proof upon which plaintiff's motion was based was the testimony of defendant's president that she acted mistakenly in providing the wrong sales figures … . Given this testimony, defendant cannot have been surprised or unduly prejudiced by plaintiff's assertion of the theory of mutual mistake; thus, leave to conform the pleadings to the proof was properly granted … . Lakshmi Grocery & Gas, Inc. v GRJH, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02891, 3rd Dept 4-14-16


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