You are here: / Evidence
, , , , ,

Survey Without Surveyor’s Affidavit Insufficient to Support Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion/Inadmissible Evidence (Survey) May Be Considered to Defeat Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Nuisance Cause of Action Dismissed Because Duplicative of Negligence Cause of Action

In an action stemming from the collapse of a retaining wall between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties, the First Department noted that a survey map without an affidavit from the surveyor is insufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, but was sufficient to support the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The court also noted that where negligence and nuisance causes of action are duplicative, the nuisance action should be dismissed:

… [A] survey alone, without an accompanying affidavit from the surveyor, does not constitute competent evidence of the location of property lines and fences or retaining walls … . Plaintiff has therefore failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate entitlement to a declaratory judgment on its claim brought pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-305.1.1.

Defendant met its prima facie burden as cross movant by submission of the affidavit of a land surveyor who inspected and measured the property subsequent to the collapse of the retaining wall in June 2013, and concluded that no portion of the wall had been upon defendant’s property. That plaintiff’s two surveys indicate that the wall was “on [the] line” of both properties, is sufficient, however, to raise a question as to the location of the wall relative to the two properties; we have long held that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be considered to defeat an application for summary judgment … .

… [W]e find that the claim of negligence is expressed throughout plaintiff’s papers, and there is a question of fact as to whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, if the retaining wall is found to rest on both parties’ premises. The claim of nuisance, based on allegations that defendant’s ongoing refusal to participate in the repairs and maintenance of the retaining wall substantially interferes with plaintiff’s ability to use and enjoy its property, arises solely from plaintiff’s claim of negligence. Where nuisance and negligence elements are “so intertwined as to be practically inseparable,” a plaintiff may recover only once for the harm suffered … . Upon a search of the record, we conclude that the third cause of action, nuisance, should be dismissed as duplicative of the negligence cause of action, although this argument was not previously made or considered … . 70 Pinehurst Avenue LLC v RPN Mgt Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09029, 1st Dept 12-30-14

 

,

Testimony Insufficient to Overcome Presumption Photo Arrays, Which Were Not Preserved, Were Unduly Suggestive—Subsequent Line-Up, Which Included Persons Much Older than Defendant, Was Unduly Suggestive—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined both identification procedures were unduly suggestive and ordered a new trial.  The People did not preserve the photo arrays and the testimony about the photo arrays was insufficient to overcome the presumption the arrays were suggestive.  The subsequent line-up included persons much older that the 18-year-old defendant and, therefore, was unduly suggestive:

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The People's failure to preserve the original photographic arrays viewed by the complainants gave rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, and the People did not present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption … . The fact that the police failed to preserve the arrays viewed by the complainants does not warrant suppression in and of itself. However, the detective's testimony at the suppression hearing as to how the computerized procedure operated was insufficiently detailed to establish its fairness … . The detective gave inconsistent testimony regarding what age criteria he entered in the computer system to generate each photo array. Furthermore, he did not recall how many screens either complainant viewed before each of them recognized the defendant, or how long it took each to make an identification. Therefore, the evidence did not overcome the presumption that the arrays were suggestive … . Although the police had not yet focused on any particular suspect, it cannot be said that the sheer volume of photographs viewed was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness, as it is unknown how many photographs were viewed by the complainants … .

We need not address whether the subsequent lineup was sufficiently attenuated in time from the photo identification procedure to nullify any possible taint, because the lineup procedure was also unduly suggestive … . While there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance, the other individuals in the lineup should sufficiently resemble the defendant so that there is no substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification … . Upon our review of a photograph of the lineup viewed by the complainants, it is apparent that the defendant and one of the fillers appear to be of similar ages, but the other three fillers appear visibly older than the defendant … . The age disparity was sufficiently apparent as to orient the viewer toward the defendant as a perpetrator of the crimes charged … . People v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 09024, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Evidence of General Cleaning Practices Is Not Sufficient to Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice

The Second Department noted that the absence of construction notice of a dangerous condition in a slip and fall case cannot be demonstrated by evidence of general cleaning procedures, as opposed to specific evidence when the area in question was inspected and cleaned:

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . With respect to the issue of constructive notice, to meet its initial burden, “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.” “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Sesina v Joy Lea Realty LLC, 2014 NY Slip OP 08976, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

, , ,

In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence

The Third Department determined circumstantial evidence the defendant had been driving while intoxicated was sufficient.  The defendant went to a witness' home seeking assistance after his car ended up in a ditch.  [Although not summarized here, the decision, which affirmed the conviction, also has in depth discussions of errors in juror selection (failure to address bias expressed by a juror re: a DWI case where peremptory challenges eventually exhausted), the criteria for juror disqualification when a juror is related to a witness but does not realize it until the witness testified, and related ineffective assistance claims.]:

A defendant need not be driving to operate a vehicle for purposes of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; it is enough if the evidence shows that he or she is behind the wheel with the engine running … . The testimony was that when defendant arrived on [a witness'] doorstep to request assistance with getting the car out of the ditch, he was alone and smelled of alcohol. In addition to the testimony of [witnesses] describing his efforts, defendant acknowledged that he was behind the wheel of the car, and that the car was running with the wheels spinning as he attempted to drive the car out of the ditch. These factors are sufficient to establish that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public highway … . People v Colburn, 2014 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

,

Although Plaintiff Could Not Identify the Cause of Her Fall, A Question of Fact Was Raised Re: the Cause by Circumstantial Evidence

The Second Department determined that, although the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall, she was able to raise a question of fact about the cause from circumstantial evidence:

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 … . However, that a defective or dangerous condition was the proximate cause of an accident can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury … .

Here, the defendants met their burden of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her accident without engaging in speculation … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact, inter alia, through circumstantial evidence, as to whether the cause of her fall was a cracked and/or unlevel condition on the defendants’ driveway … . Buglione v Spagnoletti, 2014 NY Slip Op 08801, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

, , ,

Out-of-Court Statement Leading to Discovery of the Weapon Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation Because There Was No “Direct Implication” the Statement Involved the Defendant’s Possession of the Weapon

The Second Department determined that the right of confrontation issue was preserved for appeal because, although not raised directly, the issue was specifically determined by Supreme Court.  The court further determined that the testimony which alluded to an out-of-court statement leading to the discovery of a blood-covered knife did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation:

Contrary to the People’s contention, the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th amend) issue is preserved for appellate review. While the issue was not “plainly present[ed]” to the Supreme Court …, the court’s ruling on the defendant’s objection demonstrates that the court specifically considered and resolved this issue … .

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” … . Here, however, Sergeant Tribble’s testimony and the subsequent testimony relating to the discovery of the weapon did not violate the Confrontation Clause, since there was no direct implication that the nontestifying witness told the police that the defendant possessed the knife, disposed of it, or tried to conceal it … . People v Richberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 08863, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

,

Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that a switch-blade found in a pat-down search of the defendant after a vehicle stop should have been suppressed. The way the defendant was driving and the officer’s observations of defendant after the stop provided probable cause for a DWI arrest.  However, at the suppression hearing, the arresting officer (Merino) testified that he was not going to arrest the defendant prior to the pat-down search and only arrested him because the knife was found.  The Court of Appeals held that the search, therefore, could not be a “search incident to arrest” and could not be otherwise justified:

It is not disputed that, before conducting the search, Merino could lawfully have arrested defendant for driving while intoxicated. And it is clear that the search was not unlawful solely because it preceded the arrest, since the two events were substantially contemporaneous (see Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98, 111 [1980] [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search . . ., we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa”]; People Evans, 43 NY2d 160, 166 [1977] [“The fact that the search precedes the formal arrest is irrelevant as long as the search and arrest are nearly simultaneous so as to constitute one event”]). Nor is it decisive that the police chose to predicate the arrest on the possession of a weapon, rather than on driving while intoxicated (see Devenpeck v Alford, 543 US 146 [2004]). The problem is that, as Merino testified, but for the search there would have been no arrest at all.

Where that is true, to say that the search was incident to the arrest does not make sense. It is irrelevant that, because probable cause existed, there could have been an arrest without a search. A search must be incident to an actual arrest, not just to probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not … . People v Reid, 2014 NY Slip Op 08759, CtApp 12-16-14

 

, ,

Admission Into Evidence of Nontestifying Codefendant’s Grand Jury Testimony Violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that the admission into evidence of the codefendant’s grand jury testimony violated the rule announced in Bruton v US, 391 US 123:

Under Bruton v United States, “a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant” … . Since the rule only applies where the codefendant’s statement was “incriminating on its face, and [not where it] became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial” …, the question before us is whether the codefendant’s grand jury testimony was facially incriminating as to defendant, rather than incriminating only when linked to other evidence. * * *

Although the codefendant’s grand jury testimony was intended as an innocent explanation of the events surrounding the alleged robbery, and admitted no wrongdoing, nevertheless it was “facially incriminating” as to defendant within the meaning of Bruton.

The codefendant’s narrative placed defendant with the codefendant throughout the relevant events and, specifically referring to defendant approximately 40 times, described defendant’s conduct. Among other things, the statement recounted that, after defendant’s return to the codefendant’s car following an absence to “get food,” the alleged robbery victim (an undercover officer) appeared at the car window, asked where the “stuff” was, and dropped prerecorded buy money (the property allegedly stolen in the charged robbery) into the car. This narrative suffices to create an inference that defendant, while outside the codefendant’s vehicle, had purported to set up a deal for a sale of contraband that was to culminate in the vehicle, but did not fulfill the deal once he entered the vehicle.  People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08765, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

, , ,

Deeply Divided Court Reverses Plaintiff’s Malicious Prosecution-False Arrest Verdict and Orders a New Trial/Error Not to Allow Unredacted Autopsy Report Into Evidence/The Nature of the Evidence Necessary to Demonstrate Probable Cause to Arrest Was the Core of the Disagreement Among the Justices

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed a plaintiff’s verdict and ordered a new trial.  Plaintiff’s baby died a few weeks after birth.  The medical examiner concluded that the baby died of malnutrition that was not due to a detectable defect in her digestive system.  The plaintiff was charged with the baby’s death, but the charges were dropped about a month later. Plaintiff sued the city, alleging malicious prosecution and false arrest.  Both causes of action require a finding that the police did not have probable cause to arrest.  The probable cause determination was left to the jury (which concluded the police did not have probable cause).  The majority decided it was reversible error not to admit the full autopsy report, including the redacted conclusion that the “manner of death” had been “homicide (parental neglect).”  The dissent vehemently argued that the arresting officer had enough information, both from the autopsy report and his investigation, to conclude that the baby had been adequately fed and that, therefore, the jury’s finding the officer did not have probable cause to arrest was supported by the evidence. The concurring decision vehemently disagreed with the dissent, arguing that the arresting officer had probable cause as a matter of law:

From the concurrence:

“Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer warrant a prudent person in believing that the offense has been committed” … . “The evidence necessary to establish probable cause to justify an arrest need not be sufficient to warrant a conviction” … . And, as previously discussed, conflicting evidence as to guilt or innocence, and discrepancies in the case being built against the arrested person, while relevant to the prosecution’s ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, are not relevant to the determination of whether there was probable cause for an arrest … . Further, “when the facts and circumstances are undisputed, when only one inference [concerning probable cause] can reasonably be drawn therefrom and when there is no problem as to credibility . . . , the issue as to whether they amount to probable cause is a question of law” … . Since there is no dispute about either (1) plaintiff’s status as the infant’s sole custodian, (2) the contents of the autopsy report, or (3) the detective’s reliance upon the autopsy report in making the arrest and initiating the subsequently aborted prosecution, probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution existed as a matter of law. It follows that this case should not have been submitted to the jury and that the City’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted. * * *

From the dissent:

The evidence demonstrated that notwithstanding the conclusion in the autopsy report that the child died of malnutrition, the detective testified that two medical professionals who viewed the child’s body saw no apparent signs of neglect or abuse, found food in the child’s stomach, and concluded that she appeared to be well fed. Thus, there was no indication that plaintiff had either intentionally, recklessly or negligently starved the infant. The jury reasonably could have found that, at the time of arrest, there was no basis for a prudent person to believe that an offense had been committed. That is, that the mother did not act recklessly or negligently in feeding the child and/or not realizing that the child was malnourished, or did not in fact commit any offense whatsoever. * * * … [T]he contents of the report along with the other evidence did not provide probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that “it was reasonable, as a matter of law,” for the detective to discredit plaintiff’s account. Cheeks v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08764, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

,

Plaintiff’s Expert’s Failure to Address Indications in Plaintiff’s Evidence that the Physical Deficits Were the Result of a Preexisitng Degenerative Condition (Not the Accident) Required the Grant of Summary Judgment to the Defendants—Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Re: Suffering a “Serious Injury” [Insurance Law 5102 (d)] as a Result of the Accident

The First Department determined, over a two-justice dissent, that summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants because plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact whether plaintiff’s injury was a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d).  Plaintiff’s evidence indicated plaintiff’s physical deficits may be the result of a preexisting degenerative condition, rather than the accident.  However, plaintiff’s expert did not address the preexisting condition in response to the motion for summary judgment:

Plaintiff submitted his … orthopedic surgeon’s opinion that he suffered a knee injury “secondary” to the car accident. However, the surgeon’s opinion failed to raise an issue of fact since the surgeon not only failed to address or contest the opinion of defendants’ medical experts that any condition was chronic and unrelated to the accident, but also failed to address or contest the finding of degenerative changes in the MRI report in plaintiff’s own medical records, which the same surgeon had acknowledged in his … note.

Our dissenting colleague overlooks that recent precedents of this Court establish that a plaintiff cannot raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of a serious injury under the No-Fault Law where, as here, the plaintiff’s own experts fail to address indications from the plaintiff’s own medical records, or in the plaintiff’s own expert evidence, that the physical deficits in question result from a preexisting degenerative condition rather than the subject accident (see Alvarez v NYLL Mgt. Ltd., 120 AD3d 1043, 1044 [1st Dept 2014] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, his expert failed to address “detailed findings of preexisting degenerative conditions by defendants’ experts, which were acknowledged in the reports of plaintiff’s own radiologists”]; Farmer v Ventkate, Inc., 117 AD3d 562, 562 [1st Dept 2014] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, “(h)is orthopedic surgeon concurred [*2]that the X rays showed advanced degenerative changes”]; Mena v White City Car & Limo Inc., 117 AD3d 441, 441 [1st Dept 2014] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, “plaintiff’s own radiologists noted degenerative conditions in their MRI reports, but failed to explain why this was not the cause of plaintiff’s injuries”]; Paduani v Rodriguez, 101 AD3d 470, 470, 471 [1st Dept 2012] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, defendants submitted “a radiograph report of plaintiff’s radiologist finding severe degenerative changes” and, “(w)hile (plaintiff’s) expert acknowledged in his own report MRI findings of degenerative changes in the lumbar spine, he did not address or contest such findings, and the MRI report of (plaintiff’s) radiologist found herniations but did not address causation”]; Rosa v Mejia, 95 AD3d 402, 404 [1st Dept 2012] [plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact where, inter alia, “plaintiff’s own radiologist . . . confirmed degenerative narrowing at the L5-S1 intervertebral disc space’ without further comment”]). Rivera v Fernandez & Ulloa Auto Group, 2014 NY Slip Op 08735, 1st Dept 12-11-14

 

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