You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Not Have Been Granted/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Established Negligence as a Matter of Law/Striking of Affirmative Defense Based on Brake Failure Proper Because Brakes Were Replaced (Spoliation of Evidence)/Fact that Defendant-Driver’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of the Accident As a Matter of Law Did Not Preclude Comparative Negligence Affirmative Defense

The defendant driver of a payloader struck a school bus and a personal injury action was brought by plaintiff, a school aide who was on the bus.  The Fourth Department determined defendants’ late motion to amend the answer should not have been granted, the striking of an affirmative defense based upon brake failure was properly struck because the original brakes had been replaced (spoliation), defendant-driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1143 established negligence as a matter of law, and the affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion [to amend the answer], and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The motion was made seven months after plaintiff had filed the note of issue and more than two years after she commenced the action, yet defendants offered no excuse for their delay in making the motion … . We further conclude that preclusion of the affirmative defenses based on brake failure is warranted as a sanction for spoliation … . After the accident, Cerrone replaced the payloader’s allegedly defective brake calipers and discarded the old calipers. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 provides that “[t]he driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.” Here, plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that ” the sole proximate cause of the accident was [Freeman]’s failure to yield the right of way’ ” to the school bus in violation of section 1143 … . At the time of the accident, the school bus was lawfully stopped on a public roadway, and the payloader collided with the school bus after entering the roadway from a parking lot … . In opposition to the motion, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . * * *

…T]he court erred in dismissing their affirmative defense of plaintiff’s culpable conduct, and we therefore further modify the order by reinstating that affirmative defense. CPLR 1411 provides that, “[i]n any action to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . , including contributory negligence . . . , shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” The statute encompasses any culpable conduct that had a “substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery is sought” … . Here, as the court found, there is no question that the sole proximate cause of the accident was defendants’ negligence. Defendants contend, however, that the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained in the accident were caused, in whole or in part, by her position on the bus, i.e., the fact that she was kneeling or standing on the bus rather than sitting in a seat, and they submitted an expert affirmation to that effect … . Simoneit v Mark Cerrone Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07783, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Legally Insufficient (Lacerated Finger)

The Second Department determined the evidence of “physical injury” suffered by Sergeant Klein , required for the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Sergeant Klein did not testify at trial. His medical records, which were admitted into evidence, indicated that he suffered a laceration to a finger on his right hand, with abrasions, pain, and swelling. While it is true that, to constitute physical injury, the pain caused by such a wound need not “be severe or intense to be substantial” …, it must, at a minimum, cause “more than slight or trivial pain” (id. at 447) or, to some extent, result in the impairment of the use of the finger (see Penal Law § 10.00[9]). No evidence was introduced that the injuries sustained by Sergeant Klein caused him more than trivial pain, or that the use of his finger was impaired by these injuries … . Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree under count two of the indictment must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Perry, 2014 NY Slip Op 07689, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Question of Fact Raised About Defendant’s Comparative Negligence in Striking a Bicyclist Travelling the Wrong Way on a One-Way Street

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a bicycle-vehicle collision action.  The bicyclist was traveling the wrong way on a one-way street and the collision occurred in an intersection after defendant had stopped at a stop sign before entering the intersection.  Although the bicyclist was negligent as a matter of law, the court determined that a question of fact had been raised about defendant’s failure to see what was there to be seen (comparative negligence):

… [T]he defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that she was free from comparative fault in the happening of the accident … . When asked at her deposition when she first saw the plaintiff’s bicycle, she responded “I saw an object. As I was — I stopped. And then as I proceeded to cross the intersection, I felt something. And I saw an object.” This testimony demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of her senses … and whether she failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision with the plaintiff’s bicycle … . Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Palmeri v Erricola, 2014 NY Slip Op 07637, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Malicious Prosecution Requires Something More than Merely Reporting an Alleged Incident to Authorities/Uncorroborated, Incredible, Allegations by Plaintiff Did Not Raise a Question of Fact

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined summary judgment in favor of the defendants was properly granted for malicious prosecution and defamation causes of action.  Plaintiff, Moorhouse, had been charged with attempted rape of a hotel worker, G.P., and was acquitted.  He then brought a civil suit alleging, among other causes of action, malicious prosecution and defamation.  The First Department explained that plaintiff’s uncorroborated, incredible version of events, contradicted by eyewitness testimony which corroborated the hotel worker’s allegations, and the acquittal itself, did not raise a question of fact:

In the malicious prosecution cause of action, Moorhouse contends that G.P. initiated the criminal proceeding against him without probable cause and with malice … . The Court of Appeals has imposed “stringent requirements” for bringing malicious prosecution claims … . The Court explained that this is necessary “to effectuate the strong public policy of open access to the courts for all parties without fear of reprisal in the form of a retaliatory lawsuit” … . To prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff has a “heavy burden” …, and must establish the following four elements: “(1) the initiation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) lack of probable cause, and (4) malice” … . A plaintiff’s failure to prove any one of these elements will defeat the entire claim … .

A civilian who simply provides information to law enforcement authorities, who are then free to exercise their own independent judgment as to whether an arrest should be made and criminal charges filed, will generally not be held liable for malicious prosecution … . To establish the element of initiation of a criminal proceeding, it typically must be shown that the defendant did something “more than merely report a crime to the police and cooperate in its prosecution” … . Instead “[t]he defendant must have affirmatively induced the officer to act, such [*5]as taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the officer is not acting of his own volition” … . Moorhouse v Standard NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 07605, 1st Dept 11-6-14

 

, ,

Trial Court Properly Amended Pleadings Sua Sponte and Properly Allowed Plaintiff to Reopen the Case to Present Additional Evidence of Damages

The Second Department held that Supreme Court properly amended the pleadings sua sponte and properly allowed the plaintiff to reopen its case to present additional proof:

A court may amend pleadings before or after judgment to conform them to the evidence (see CPLR 3025[c]). Where no prejudice is shown, an amendment may be allowed during or even after trial … . Furthermore, an application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion … . A trial court, in the exercise of discretion and for sufficient reasons, may allow a party to reopen his or her case, and supplement the evidence to cure any defects in the evidence that have inadvertently occurred … .

Here, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, amending the pleadings, continuing the trial, and permitting the plaintiff to reopen its case to present additional proof of damages … . MRI Enters Inc v Comprehensive Med Care of NY PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07482, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Formal Training Not Necessarily Required to Qualify an Expert

In affirming the conviction, the Second Department explained the discretionary criteria for qualifying an expert at trial, which does not necessarily depend upon formal training:

The qualification of a witness to testify as an expert is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s determination should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion … . “The competence of an expert in a particular subject may derive from long observation and real world experience, and is not dependent upon formal training or attainment of an academic degree in the subject” … . People v Dorvilier, 2014 NY Slip Op 07517, 2nd Dept, 11-5-14

 

,

Criteria for “Substantial Evidence” Review of an Administrative Determination After a Hearing Explained

In annulling the ruling of the Housing Authority because it was not supported by substantial evidence, the Second Department explained its role in reviewing an administrative ruling after a hearing:

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence” … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”… . While the level of proof is less than a preponderance of the evidence, substantial evidence does not arise from bare surmise, conjecture, speculation, or rumor …, or from the absence of evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … .

Here, the Housing Authority’s determination that the petitioner allowed her father to reside with her without notice to or approval from the Housing Authority in violation of the rules and regulations of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Harrison v Palumbo, 2014 NY Slip OP 07510, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Demonstrated Absence of Constructive Notice of Liquid on Stairs

The First Department determined that proof of the maintenance schedule was sufficient to demonstrate defendant did not have constructive notice of a spill on a staircase:

Defendant … demonstrated that it lacked constructive notice of the liquid on the staircase through the affidavit of the caretaker assigned to the building on the day before the accident, who averred that she would have followed the weekend janitorial schedule, which required inspecting the building by 11:00 a.m. on the day before the accident and removal of anything found on the staircase, and that, pursuant to the schedule, she would inspect the staircase at around 8:00 a.m. the next morning … . Her statement concerning the janitorial schedule was corroborated by her supervisor’s testimony. Plaintiff testified that the wet condition was not present on the stairs the prior evening, when she returned home at 9 p.m. Such evidence established that the wet liquid was deposited on the stairs only after the caretaker left work and that the accident occurred before the caretaker came to work the next morning. This time frame, occurring out of regular work hours, would not have provided the caretaker with a sufficient period of time to discover and remedy the problem … . Defendant is not required to patrol the staircases 24 hours a day … . Pagan v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 07441, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Odor of Burnt Marijuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant and Vehicle

The Third Department determined that, upon a valid traffic stop, the odor of burnt marijuana detected by officers Denise and Knoetgen provided probable cause for the search of the vehicle and its occupants:

As for the propriety of the … pat down and/or search of defendant, “it is well established that [t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants” … . Here, both Denise and Knoetgen testified that they smelled burnt marihuana emanating from defendant’s clothing and the vehicle in which he was riding. Even accepting that Denise’s experience in detecting this distinctive odor was not sufficiently developed at the suppression hearing, we are satisfied that Knoetgen, as a drug recognition expert and a K-9 drug detection officer, possessed the requisite training and experience to do so. Further, and as noted previously, Knoetgen testified that the driver of the vehicle admitted that he and defendant had smoked marihuana prior to being pulled over for the underlying traffic violation … . As the circumstances presented and the observations made by the troopers provided probable cause for Knoetgen’s pat down/search of defendant, we discern no basis upon which to suppress the drugs subsequently seized from defendant’s pant leg. People v Rasul, 2014 NY Slip Op 07378, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Sole Eyewitness’ Testimony at Trial Indicating She Could Not Identify the Shooter (Because of the Passage of Time and the Effects of Alcoholism and Depression) Did Not Allow the Prosecutor to Impeach Her with Her Grand Jury Testimony and Prior Identification of the Shooter

In reversing defendant’s conviction, the Second Department explained that the prosecution should not have been allowed to impeach its own witness when the witness failed to identify the shooter in her trial testimony.  In addition, it was error to allow a detective to testify that the witness previously identified the defendant:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach the sole eyewitness with her grand jury testimony and photo array identification of the shooter. A party may impeach its own witness with prior inconsistent statements only when the testimony of that witness on a material issue tends to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damages the party’s case (see CPL 60.35…). “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event, whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” … . Here, the testimony of the eyewitness that she did not remember the face of the shooter and could not identify the shooter because of the passage of time between the shooting and the trial, and because of her struggles with alcohol and depression, did not tend to disprove or affirmatively damage the People’s case … . Accordingly, it was error to permit the prosecutor to impeach the testimony of the eyewitness with her grand jury testimony and photo array identification. People v Ayala, 2014 NY Slip Op 07362, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

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