You are here: / Evidence
, ,

IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the out-of-possession landlord and the lessee of the hotel where plaintiff slipped and fell on water on the bathroom floor were entitled to summary judgment. The out-of-possession landlord was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair a dangerous condition. The lessee demonstrated it had no constructive or actual notice of the condition:

“‘An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . “[A] landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … . * * *

Here, the moving defendants established, prima facie, that New Ram [the lessee] did not create or have constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition …. [T]he moving defendants submitted … plaintiff’s deposition transcript indicating that the plaintiff did not see any water on the bathroom floor prior to his fall. The plaintiff testified that he showered in the bathroom at approximately 6:00 p.m., after which there was no water on the bathroom floor. Thereafter, he went to sleep and awoke at approximately 1:00 a.m. to use the bathroom, where he fell and then first noticed the leak. The plaintiff also testified that he never noticed or reported any leaks or water on the bathroom floor prior to this incident and that he never before complained about water on the bathroom floor or leaks … .

The moving defendants also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of [the lessee’s] former general manager, who testified that there had never before been reports of a water leak from one room to another, nor had there been reports of any other slip and falls in the bathrooms of the hotel. She further stated that any such report would have been recorded in a log, and no such report existed. Additionally, another hotel worker averred in an affidavit that he was not aware of any incidents in the hotel where water leaked from one room to another. Gibbs v New Ram Realty, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00349, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlord was not obligated to repair dangerous conditions by contract or course of conduct and the lessee of the property demonstrated a lack of constructive and actual notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The property defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT HAVE A STOP SIGN AND HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COLLISION WITH DEFENDANT WHO HAD ENTERED THE INTERSECTION AFTER STOPPING AT A STOP SIGN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs in this intersection traffic accident case did not not demonstrate plaintiff driver, who had the right-of-way (no stop sigh), was not at fault. Defendant testified he stopped at a stop sign, looked both ways, proceeded slowly into the intersection and was half-way through when the rear of his car was struck by the plaintiff driver. Although not specifically discussed, it appears that testimony raised a question of fact whether plaintiff exercised reasonable care to avoid the collision:

“There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” … . Hence, “[a] defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), a driver entering an intersection controlled by a stop sign must yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle that is already in the intersection or that is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard” … . “As a general matter, a driver who fails to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign is in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) and is negligent as a matter of law” … . “Even though the driver with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield, he or she still has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle already in the intersection” … . Ficalora v Almeida, 2026 NY Slip Op 00346, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Having the right-of-way does not necessarily guarantee summary judgment in an intersection traffic accident case. A driver with the right-of-way is obligated to use reasonable care to avoid a collision with a vehicle already in the intersection.​

 

, ,

AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL, THE BANK DEMONSTRATED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT BY CERTIFIED MAIL BUT FAILED TO PROVE THE NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT BY REGULAR MAIL; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice in this foreclosure action was insufficient:

“A plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened” … . Here, although the certified mailing receipt bearing the defendant’s signature upon delivery was sufficient to establish the mailing of one notice by certified mail … , the label submitted as proof of the regular first-class mailing, with no postage, no address of intended recipient, “no indicia of actual mailing such as postal codes and . . . [no] mailing receipts or tracking information” … , was insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed by regular first-class mail … . Since the plaintiff also failed to submit “proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed,” or testimony “from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened” … , the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 at the nonjury trial … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Robustello, 2026 NY Slip Op 00340, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: The RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure requirements must be strictly complied with. Here, at trial, the bank proved the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by certified mail and received by the defendant, but the bank failed to prove the RPAPL 1304 notice was also sent by regular mail. The complaint was dismissed.

 

, ,

THE INSTALLATION OF A TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT AN INTERSECTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A MUNICIPALITY HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE CONDITION; THE COMPLAINT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO “WRITTEN NOTICE” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case should not have been dismissed on the ground the defendant city did not have written notice of the allegedly negligently designed temporary pedestrian signal at an intersection. The written notice requirement does not apply to the failure to maintain or install pedestrian signals. In addition, the expert evidence created a question of fact whether the city created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence:

… [T]he requirement that the municipality have prior written notice of the alleged defect before it can be held liable for injuries arising from the defect does not apply here (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]). The prior written notice requirement applies to physical defects such as holes or cracks in the street, not the failure to maintain or install pedestrian signals … .

Neither plaintiff’s expert nor defendants’ expert, both professional engineers, cite a standard or regulation setting forth specific height requirements for temporary pedestrian signals. In addition, the experts disagree as to whether the temporary pedestrian signal was installed at a proper height. …

An issue of fact also exists as to whether the height or the placement of the signal proximately caused plaintiff’s accident. Although defendants’ expert opined that the temporary pedestrian signal would have been within plaintiff’s field of view, plaintiff testified that he remembered looking for a signal and not seeing one. Plaintiff’s testimony, together with the conflicting expert opinions as to whether the pedestrian signal was installed at a proper height, is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the City’s negligence … . Harelick v De La Cruz Lora, 2026 NY Slip Op 00315, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: The requirement that a city have written notice of a dangerous condition before liability for an injury will attach applies to physical defects like holes or cracks in the street. It does not apply to an allegedly negligently designed temporary pedestrian traffic signal.

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS KNOCKED TO THE GROUND BY DEFENDANTS’ DOG; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT TO THE CONTRARY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this “plaintiff knocked to the ground by a dog” action should have been granted. Plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact in the face of defendants’ proof they were not aware of, and should not have been aware of, the dog’s vicious propensities:

“To recover in strict liability for damages caused by a dog, a plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities” … . “Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation” … . “Knowledge of vicious propensities may be established by evidence of, among other things, a prior similar attack or by evidence that the dog was known to growl, snap, or bare its teeth” … . In contrast, “‘[k]nowledge of normal canine behavior, such as running around, pulling on a leash and barking at another dog or passerby, barking at strangers, or chasing animals, will not support a finding of knowledge of vicious propensities'” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that they were not aware, nor should have been aware, that the dog had vicious propensities … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s affidavit raised only feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony … . Yi-Ching Liu v Chu, 2026 NY Slip Op 00284, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was injured when defendants’ dog knocked him to the ground. Consult this decision for insight into the proof a defendant dog-owner must present to demonstrate defendant was not not aware of, and should not have been aware of, a dog’s “vicious propensities.”

 

, ,

HERE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this “lack of informed consent” medical malpractice case should not have been granted. The court noted that plaintiff’s signing a consent form was not enough to establish defendant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law:

“To establish a cause of action to recover damages based upon lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury'” … . Thus, “a defendant can establish entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the plaintiff signed a detailed consent form after being apprised of alternatives and foreseeable risks, by demonstrating that a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff’s position would not have declined to undergo the surgery, or by demonstrating that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was not a proximate cause of the injury” … . “If the defendant makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to those elements on which the defendant met its prima facie burden of proof” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent … . “The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendant[‘s] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … , and the defendant’s submissions, including a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, did not establish that the plaintiff was given sufficient information on the risks and alternatives regarding the materials used and the procedures performed … . Furthermore, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Rymer v Bernstein, 2026 NY Slip Op 00273, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: Here n this  “lack of informed consent” medical malpractice action, plaintiff’s signing a consent form did not entitle defendant to summary judgment as a matter of law.

 

, ,

HERE THE NATURE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WAS PROBATIVE OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS’ VAN RAN OVER INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FOOT; DEFENDANTS ALLEGED INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL OFF HER BICYCLE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL ON LIABILITY AND DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a unified trial on liability and damages was an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs alleged defendants’ van ran over infant plaintiff’s foot. Defendants alleged infant plaintiff was injured when she fell off her bicycle. Because the nature of the injury was relevant to proof of defendants’ liability, an unified trial was necessary:

“Unified trials should only be held ‘where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability'” … . “‘The party opposing bifurcation has the burden of showing that the nature of the injuries necessarily assists the factfinder in making a determination with respect to the issue of liability'” … . “Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases” … . Thus, “‘[t]he decision whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion'” … .

Here, the plaintiffs and [defendants] offered conflicting accounts of how the infant plaintiff allegedly was injured, and the plaintiffs demonstrated that evidence regarding the nature of the infant plaintiff’s alleged injuries was probative in determining how the accident occurred … . I.R. v Santos, 2026 NY Slip Op 00270, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: It is a matter of judicial discretion whether to hold a bifurcated or a unified personal-injury trial on liability and damages. But where the nature of the injury is relevant to proving liability, it is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for a unified trial.

 

, ,

A TREE IS NOT A “BUILDING OR STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1); THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, INCURRED WHILE CUTTING A LIMB OFF A TREE, WAS NOT COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s injury while he was cutting a tree was not covered by Labor Law 240 (1). Plaintiff, a county parks department employee, argued that the tree cutting and removal was part of a larger construction project, i.e., setting up a holiday light show:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . The statute “applies where an employee is engaged ‘in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure'” … . “[T]ree cutting and removal, in and of themselves, are not activities subject to Labor Law § 240(1). Those activities are generally excluded from statutory protection because a tree is not a building or structure, as contemplated by the statute but, rather, ‘a product of nature'” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence demonstrating that, at the time of his accident, the plaintiff was engaged in tree cutting and removal, which “constituted routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context” … . In support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of James Leonard, the director of general maintenance for the Department, and Russell Argila, a senior maintenance mechanic in the general maintenance department. Leonard testified that, on the date of the accident, the plaintiff and his coworkers were engaged in “thinning out, pruning trees, dead branches along . . . [a] hillside,” and that the tree the plaintiff was cutting at the time of his accident was part of that work. Argila testified that the tree crew, of which the plaintiff was a member, was “coming up there to clean it up, to do their normal tree work,” and denied that the purpose of the tree work was to prepare for the installation of the [light show]. Peterkin v Westchester Parks Found., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00268, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: Here tree cutting and removal was deemed “routine maintenance” which was not covered by Labor Law 240 (1) because a tree is not a “building of structure.”

 

,

IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PROVE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED OF ICE AND SNOW; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall action and denying defendants’ summary judgment motion, determined defendants did not demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of the icy condition. To demonstrate a lack of constructive notice, a defendant must prove the area of the slip and fall was recently inspected or cleaned. Proof of general snow and ice removal practices is not enough:

“In moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice, the defendants [have] the burden of establishing, prima facie, that [they] neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition” … . “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 defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged icy condition. The defendants’ maintenance employee provided only general information about his snow and ice removal practices, and he failed to specify when he last salted, removed ice from, or inspected the area where the plaintiff fell relative to the time of the accident … . Jackson v A M E Zion-Trinity Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00243, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: There used to be reversals of slip and fall cases on this ground every week for ten years or so. Now they are rare.

 

, ,

DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE “DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE” OF A MOTION FOR A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THAT DEFENDANT WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, disagreeing with the Third Department, determined that the “dismissal without prejudice” of a motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) constitutes a denial of the motion which is appealable:

… [W]e disagree with the Third Department and conclude that under the plain language of CPL 440.47(3)(a), an order “dismissing” a resentencing application at step two pursuant to CPL 440.47(2)(d) is an order “denying resentencing” … , rendering it appealable as of right pursuant to CPL 440.47(3)(a). This is because the effect of an order “dismissing” a resentencing application is that the defendant has been denied resentencing. We conclude that the fact that the statute uses the word “dismiss” in CPL 440.47(2)(d) (when indicating what the court shall do with an application for resentencing that does not contain evidence corroborating the defendant’s claim that he or she was a victim of domestic violence at the time of the offense) and “denying” in CPL 440.47(3)(a) (when indicating what orders an appeal may be taken from) does not mean that the Legislature did not intend for a defendant to be able to appeal from an order determining that a defendant has failed to provide evidence … corroborating the defendant’s claim that he or she was a victim of domestic violence at the time of the offense. People v Nymeen C., 2026 NY Slip Op 00144, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: There is a split of authority on the question whether the “denial without prejudice” of a defendant’s motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) is appealable. It is not appealable in the Third Department but is appealable in the Second Department.

 

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