You are here: / Evidence
,

PLAINTIFF WAS CROUCHING DOWN MARKING THE FLOOR WITH DUCT TAPE WHEN A LADDER FELL OVER AND STRUCK HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defense motion for judgment for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should not have been granted and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was crouching down marking off areas of the floor with duct tape when an ladder fell over and struck him, causing him to lose consciousness:

The elevation differential involved here cannot be described as de minimis … . The evidence also established that the ladder was not adequately secured for the purposes of the undertaking … .

… [P]laintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through his deposition testimony that he was struck by a ladder that was not properly secured. … [I]t was foreseeable for a ladder resting against a wall to topple over and strike a nearby worker. Nor could a worker knocking over the ladder be considered an intervening superseding cause in this case … . Silva v 770 Broadway Owner LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00299, First Dept 1-21-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was marking the floor with duct tape when a ladder which had been leaning against a wall fell over and struck him. It was foreseeable that an unsecured ladder could fall over. If a worker knocked it over, that would be foreseeable as well and would not be a superseding cause.

 

,

THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN NECESSARY AND THE PROCEDURES FOR AN INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE WERE NOT FOLLOWED; THE SEIZED HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, granting defendant’s motion to suppress a handgun, over a dissent, determined the impoundment of defendant’s vehicle after a traffic stop was unnecessary and the search of the vehicle was not a valid inventory search:

Maggs’ [the arresting officer’s] ambiguous testimony — essentially asserting that any vehicle parked on the street would be unsafe if unattended — falls short of demonstrating that the subject vehicle was not reasonably secure and safe in this residential area, among the many other vehicles parked curbside … . Further, although departmental policy did not require Maggs to investigate whether defendant’s father, who was not present at the scene, was in fact willing and able to take control of the vehicle, “facts were brought to [Maggs’] attention to show that impounding would be unnecessary” … . Moreover, defendant’s inquiry as to whether the vehicle could be picked up at some later point is tantamount to a request to leave the vehicle where it was, presenting yet another situation in which a vehicle should not be towed per written departmental policy. Given the People’s failure to demonstrate that the vehicle was lawfully impounded at the time of the inventory search, defendant’s motion should have been granted.

The People also failed to demonstrate that the so-called inventory search was conducted in compliance with established procedures … . * * *

There is also considerable indicia that the purported inventory search was a pretext to search for contraband, including the canvassing of defendant’s residence, the absence of any traffic citation, and the fact that the decision to arrest defendant and impound the vehicle came only after defendant refused to provide his consent to search the vehicle … . People v Gray, 2025 NY Slip Op 00249, Third Dept 1-16-25

Practice Point: Here the vehicle could have been safely left parked where it was, or it could have been picked up by someone. To impound the vehicle therefore violated the police department’s regulations. Because the People did not prove the vehicle was legally impounded at the time it was searched the suppression motion should have been granted.

Practice Point: The hallmark of a valid inventory search is an inventory list, which was not created here.

 

, , ,

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION OF A TEACHER’S AIDE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school district’s own submissions raised questions of fact in this Child Victims Act case alleging sexual abuse of plaintiff student by a teacher’s aide:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the school district was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging negligence and negligent supervision and retention insofar as asserted against … . In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and that of his third grade teacher, who served as the direct supervisor of the teacher’s aide. The plaintiff testified that the teacher’s aide singled him out for attention in the classroom and hugged him in the hallways … . While such conduct, without more, might not have been enough to warrant denial of the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff also testified that, upon dismissal from school, the teacher’s aide frequently walked him to her car in the presence of other staff members and then drove him to her home, where the alleged sexual abuse primarily occurred. The third grade teacher also testified that it was “[in]appropriate” for teachers and other school district employees to drive students in their personal vehicles or take students to their homes, conduct which the teacher also believed violated school policies … .

Therefore, the defendants’ own submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the school district “had notice of the potential for harm to the . . . plaintiff such that its alleged negligence in supervising and retaining [the teacher’s aide] placed [her] in a position to cause foreseeable harm” … . Kastel v Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 00210, Second Dept 1-15-25

Practice Point: The criteria for a school district’s liability for negligent hiring and retention and negligent supervision in a Child Victims Act case concisely laid out.

 

,

DETERMINING SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE BY COMPARING THE RANGE OF MOTION OF LIMBS ON THE INJURED SIDE TO THE RANGE OF MOTION OF CORRESPONDING LIMBS ON THE OTHER SIDE MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IF THE OTHER SIDE HAS ALSO SUFFERED INJURIES, WHETHER PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY, IN THE PAST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined comparison of the ranges of motion of the injured limbs to the corresponding limbs on the other side of the body (contralateral members), which resulted in 0 % loss of schedule use (SLU), was a flawed approach. The Board concluded that such a comparison was not appropriate only if the injuries on the other side of the body are permanent, which was not demonstrated to be the case here. The Third Department disagreed and held that the comparison may also be inappropriate if the prior injuries on the other side of the body were temporary, The matter was remitted:

… [W]e agree that evidence of a permanent physical or functional impairment of the contralateral member due to traumatic injury or other condition that does not affect the subject member would render a comparison to the contralateral member when determining range of motion inappropriate. However, comparing contralateral members that have temporary physical or functional impairments, either due to work-related or nonwork-related injuries, would also be inappropriate as such comparisons could equally result in inequitable range of motion findings. In our view, the Board’s interpretation of section 1.3 (3) (b) of the guidelines to apply only to permanent physical or functional impairments is unreasonable and cannot be upheld … . Here, the Board rejected [the] findings that a comparison of the contralateral members was inappropriate due to a lack of evidence that the injuries that claimant suffered to those members in the 2014 work-related accident resulted in permanent impairments. Under these circumstances, we remit the matter to the Board so that a proper assessment regarding a comparison of contralateral members may occur … . Matter of Brooks v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 00130, Third Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the problems raised by determining a loss of schedule use by comparing ranges of motion on both sides of the body. Comparison of the injured side to the other side may not be appropriate if the other side has been injured in the past.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an excavated area four or five feet below ground level when a worker at ground level threw a board into the excavated area which struck plaintiff. Apparently throwing boards into the excavated area was part of the work, so the Labor Law 200 and negligent supervision causes of action survived:

Defendant thus demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff was not injured by an “object [that] fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .T he burden thus shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which plaintiff failed to do” … , requiring dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. * * *

Defendant’s proof showed that the dig area was not “normally exposed to falling material or objects” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [a] [1]), and, in any event, plaintiff was working only four to five feet below grade. Thus, defendant demonstrated the “overhead protection” regulation was not applicable … . Accordingly, defendant met its preliminary burden to show that plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 241 (6) as a matter of law … . Plaintiff’s proof does not raise an issue of fact on this point, thus dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim should have been granted … . James v Marini Homes, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00132, Second Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: If the safety precautions related to falling objects are not applicable because the plaintiff was working in an area where falling objects could not be anticipated, then the “falling objects” protections in Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) will not be triggered.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY MAKING A LEFT TURN DIRECTLY INTO DEFENDANT’S PATH OF TRAVEL WHEN DEFENDANT HAD A GREEN LIGHT; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT WAS SPEEDING WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Defendant had the right-of-way (green light) when plaintiff made a left turn directly into defendant’s path of travel. Plaintiff’s testimony that defendant was speeding was not enough to raise a question of fact:

“A violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . “Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 provides that the driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Further, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(a) provides that no person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection . . . until such movement can be made with reasonable safety” … . “Although a driver with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the other driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield, a driver is bound to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses and is negligent for failure to do so” … . However, “a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s contention that the defendant was operating his vehicle at an excessive speed “is speculative and unsupported by any competent evidence” … . The defendant testified at his deposition that he was driving below the speed limit, and the plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she did not see the defendant’s vehicle prior to the collision … . Although evidence regarding the force of a collision or the manner in which a vehicle moved as a result thereof may be sufficient to create an inference that a driver was speeding in some circumstances … , the plaintiff’s deposition testimony was not sufficient to create such an inference … . Further, the plaintiff’s “contention[ ] that [the defendant] could have avoided the accident . . . w[as] speculative and unsupported by the record … . Morante v Blaney, 2025 NY Slip Op 00086, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: Although proof that defendant driver with the right-of-way was speeding when the plaintiff driver violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn may raise a question of fact, here plaintiff driver’s testimony standing alone, claiming defendant was speeding, was not enough to raise a question of fact.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing one of defendant’s robbery convictions and ordering a new trial, determined (1) a new trial is required because the judge did not obtain defendant’s written and signed consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations had begun, and (2) the showup identification of the defendant was unreasonable and unduly suggestive, requiring dismissal of the counts relating to one of the two robberies (there was no identification testimony at the trial):

“Under CPL 270.35, once the jury has commenced deliberations an alternate juror may not be substituted for a regular juror unless the defendant consents to the replacement . . . in writing . . . signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court” … . * * *

… [T]the People failed to establish that the showup identification was conducted in close temporal proximity to the crime … . Further, there was no unbroken chain of events or exigent circumstances that justified the showup identification, as the defendant was already under arrest for the second robbery … .

… [T]he People failed to establish that the showup identification was not unduly suggestive. Here, prior to the showup identification, the complainant was informed by the police officers that they had someone in custody who matched the description provided by the complainant. During the showup identification, the defendant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and there were one to two police officers near the defendant as he was treated by emergency medical service providers. While these factors alone do not necessarily render a showup identification unduly suggestive, when viewed cumulatively with other factors, including that the officers informed the complainant that the defendant committed another crime around the corner, that the defendant’s face was severely bruised and bleeding, and that it was “an active crime scene” with several surrounding officers dealing with witnesses “[y]elling and screaming,” the showup identification was unduly suggestive … . People v Simon, 2025 NY Slip Op 00117, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: A defendant’s consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations have begun must be in writing signed in open court.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of a showup identification deemed unreasonable and unduly suggestive.

 

, ,

A MINOR INJURY TO ONE CHILD BY ANOTHER WHILE MOTHER WAS NAPPING NEARBY, AND A SUBSEQUENT VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE POLICE, DID NOT AMOUNT TO NEGLECT BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the single incident in which one child injured another while mother was napping and a subsequent verbal argument with the police did not amount to neglect:

Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a minor accident involving two of the children while the mother was napping constituted neglect. The agency’s proof that the brother had a minor injury to his neck after an isolated incident did not establish that the child’s mental or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger of being impaired as a result of the incident, or that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care … . Indeed, the brother was without any visible injury shortly after the incident. Nor did the incident cause any impairment or imminent danger to the daughter or to the baby, who was asleep in the next room. Although an isolated accidental injury may constitute neglect if the parent was aware of an intrinsically dangerous situation … , there is no evidence that the mother’s napping while the children were in close proximity and within earshot was intrinsically dangerous.

Similarly, Family Court’s finding that the mother’s interaction with the police in any respect rose to the level of neglect is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A verbal argument with a police officer did not pose any serious or potentially serious harm to the infant child, who was the only child with her at that time … . Matter of Rebecca F. (Danequea J.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00042, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: One child inflicted a minor injury on another while mother was napping nearby. Subsequently mother argued with the police when she was not allowed back in the apartment to get her cell phone charger. These incidents did not support Family Court’s neglect finding.

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not prove the officer who searched defendant’s person intended to arrest the defendant at the time of the search. Therefore the People did not prove the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid search incident to arrest and the evidence should have been suppressed:

Defendant was entitled to suppression of the cocaine and money recovered in a search of his person, which occurred after officers pulled over the minivan in which he was a passenger for two traffic violations and detected a strong odor of marijuana as they approached the van. An officer saw loose marijuana on defendant’s lap, asked him to step out of the car, and immediately frisked him, finding a small plastic bag in defendant’s pocket and a significantly larger one inside the top of his underwear. The drugs were not recovered in a valid search pursuant to a lawful arrest because the record fails to show that the officer had any intention of arresting defendant before recovering the cocaine … . People v Aragon, 2025 NY Slip Op 00055, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Unless the People prove the officer who searched defendant’s person intended to arrest the defendant when the search was done, the search is not a valid search incident to arrest and suppression is required.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE THAT GUARDRAILS WERE AVAILABLE WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this scaffold-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Defendants argued that guardrails for the scaffold were available but plaintiff failed to use them. The First Department held that the evidence of the availability of the guardrails was not strong enough to raise a question of fact:

“Liability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident” … . Caselaw has not further defined the meaning of “readily available,” beyond qualifying that a safety device need not be “in the immediate vicinity.” Nonetheless, the seminal Gallagher case itself specifies that the worker should at least “kn[o]w where to find the safety devices” … . Conversely, a defendant may do much to show that safety devices were readily available by showing that the worker knew “exactly where they could be found” … .

While defendants indicated that workers were generally aware that railings were available throughout the site, defendants failed to show that their precise locations were made known to the workers. The affidavits of the three foremen and coworker are conclusory, the record does not specify or even approximate the location of the guardrails, and at oral argument, counsel was unable to specify where these safety devices could be found. Moreover, although the record contains photos of the subject scaffold, there are no photographs of the missing guardrails that might serve as a guide to their possible location. Defendant’s proof demonstrated only “[t]he general availability of safety equipment at a work site [which] does not relieve the defendants of liability” … . Perez v 1334 York, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00066, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Although a defendant may escape liability in a Labor Law 240(1) action if the plaintiff failed to use available safety equipment, proof of the “general availability” of the safety equipment does not raise a question of fact. The proof of available safety equipment must be specific. Here there was no evidence the defendants even knew where the safety devices were.

 

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