You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S CALCULATIONS WERE BASED RENDERED THE REPORT INADMISSBILE HEARSAY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the confirmation of the referee’s report in this foreclosure action, determined the absence of the records relied upon for the referee’s computations rendered the report inadmissible hearsay:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . “However, computations based on the review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … .

… [T]he referee’s report was improperly premised upon unproduced business records. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an employee of the plaintiff, An Dang, which the referee relied upon in computing the amount due to the plaintiff. However, the record does not reflect that the plaintiff submitted the business records upon which An Dang or the referee relied in computing the total amount due on the mortgage, as well as payments for taxes, insurance, and other advances. Therefore, the referee’s findings were not substantially supported by the record … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Jong Shin, 2024 NY Slip Op 01029, Second Dept 2-28-24

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, a referee’s report based upon records which were not submitted to the court is inadmissible hearsay.

 

,

THE ROLLING LADDER LEFT IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT’S STORE WAS READILY OBVERSABLE, WHICH SPEAKS ONLY TO DEFENDANT’S DUTY TO WARN, NOT TO THE DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE; THE PROTRUDING BAR ON THE LADDER CREATED A POTENTIAL TRIPPING HAZARD; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store’s motion for summary judgment in this trip and fall case should not have been granted. A rolling ladder had been left in an aisle of the store. The was a stabilizer bar which protruded out several inches on each side of the ladder. Plaintiff picked up something from the shelf, took one step back and tripped over the stabilizer bar as she turned. Supreme Court held the bar was readily observable and not inherently dangerous. The Third Department noted that the “readily observable” aspect of a condition goes to the duty to warn, but the duty to keep the area safe remains:

That the ladder was readily observable obviates defendants’ duty to warn of the ladder’s presence but not defendants’ continuing obligation to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . For her part, plaintiff acknowledged seeing the ladder, but was unaware of the protruding stabilizer bar prior to her fall. Given the circumstances surrounding the incident, we cannot agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the ladder was not inherently dangerous … . The record includes a photograph of the ladder which shows that the stabilizer bar protruded out several inches on each side. This feature, coupled with the placement of the ladder into the center of the aisle, presented a potential tripping hazard. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ premises were maintained in a reasonably safe condition. Wolfe v Staples, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00957, Third Dept 2-22-24

Practice Point: The fact that an object over which plaintiff tripped was readily observable goes to defendant’s duty to warn, but not to the duty to keep the premises safer. Here a protruding bar on a readily observable rolling ladder created a potential tripping hazard and raised a question of fact about defendant’s duty to keep the premises safe.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SANITARY CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP TO HAVE A LIFEGUARD, THE CODE DID REQUIRE THE CAMP TO OFFER SOME SUPERVISION OF PERSONS USING THE SWIMMING POOL; THEREFORE THE SUMMER CAMP OWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO SUFFERED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN THE POOL, A DUTY OF CARE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant summer-camp-owners’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this swimming-pool-incident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent suffered some sort of “medical emergency” in defendants’ swimming pool. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the Sanitary Code did not require the camp to have a lifeguard and therefore defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff’s decedent. The Third Department held that, although the Sanitary Code did not require a lifeguard, it did require some level of supervision of persons using the pool:

While the CPR [lifeguard] requirement is specifically exempted for temporary residences [like defendants’ summer camp], the aquatic supervisor for a supervision level III [defendants had chosen to offer supervision level III] at a temporary residence must still possess the other enumerated qualifications (see 10 NYCRR 6-1.31 [c]). To find otherwise would render meaningless 10 NYCRR 6-1.23 (a) (3), which provides that if supervision level III is chosen then the temporary residence must adhere to the supervision level III requirements … . While it is true that 10 NYCRR 6-1.23 (a) (1) (i) exempts CPR certified staff [lifeguards] from a temporary residence that selects supervision level III, it plainly does not exempt these facilities from providing any supervision. As such, we find that Supreme Court erred in determining that defendants did not owe any duty to decedent and granting defendants summary judgment on this basis. Matter of Tamrazyan v Solway Props. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00960, Third Dept 2-22-24

Practice Point: Here the duty owed by defendant summer camp to persons using the swimmer pool was spelled out in the Sanitary Code. Although the defendant summer camp, pursuant to the Code, was not required to provide a lifeguard, it was required to offer some supervision of persons using the swimming pool. Therefore the complaint should not have been dismissed on the ground that defendant did not owe a duty to plaintiff’s decedent, who suffered a medical emergency in the pool.

 

, ,

UNDER THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS MED MAL TRIAL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT LIABILITY TO PHYSICIANS WHO HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Warhit, determined defendant doctor and hospital in this med mal case did not attempt at trial to shift liability to the physician-defendants who had been awarded summary judgment before trial. The opinion is fact-specific and therefore will not be summarized here. The issue is discussed in detail and relevant authority is analyzed in some depth:

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the defendants improperly attempted at trial to shift liability to certain physician-defendants who had been awarded summary judgment prior to trial. We answer this question in the negative, and find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application of the plaintiff … , in effect, for a new trial on this ground. We further conclude that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Angieri v Musso, 2024 NY Slip Op 00887, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: Under the specific facts brought out at trial in this med mal case, the plaintiff did not attempt to shift liability to doctors who had been awarded summary judgment prior to trial. The issue and the relevant authority are discussed in some detail.

 

, , ,

THE SEARCH WARRANT SEEKING CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) FROM THE NEW JERSEY CELL PHONE COMPANY WAS FAXED TO NEW JERSEY FROM NEW YORK; THEREFORE THE WARRANT WAS “EXECUTED” IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OR CPL ARTICLE 690 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined the search warrant for cell site location information (CSLI) was executed in New York, where the warrant was faxed from, not in New Jersey, where the T-Mobile records were located. Therefore there was no violation of the New York Constitution or Criminal Procedure Law 690.2-(1). The CSLI was used to place the defendant at the location of the stabbing at the time of the stabbing:

Just as the term “executed” is not defined in CPL article 700, it is also not defined in the New York Constitution or CPL article 690. Nevertheless, in determining where a warrant is “executed” within the meaning of CPL 700.05(4), the Court of Appeals looked to where the actions of the law enforcement officers took place. It follows that in determining where a search warrant is “executed” within the meaning of the New York Constitution and CPL 690.20(1), we similarly must look to where the actions of the law enforcement officers took place. Here, the action of the subject law enforcement officer—the act of faxing the search warrant to T-Mobile—took place in New York … .

The “core” of the Fourth Amendment is to “protect the right of privacy from arbitrary police intrusion” … . A service provider accessing and retrieving its subscribers’ CSLI and call detail information located in the service provider’s own business records does not implicate its subscribers’ right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment … . It is only when agents of the government act that the subscribers’ Fourth Amendment rights are implicated. Since the actions of the government’s agents that encroached on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights—the faxing of the warrant—took place in New York, we conclude that this is where the search warrant was executed. People v Riche, 2024 NY Slip Op 00785, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: Here a search warrant seeking cell site location information (CSLI), which was faxed from New York to the cell phone company in New Jersey, was “executed” in New York and therefore did not violate the New York Constitution or Criminal Procedure Law Article 690.

 

, ,

THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS UNDER MEDICATION AT THE HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; AT TRIAL THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO REJECT THE STATEMENT IF THEY FOUND IT WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE; AND THE DEFENSE BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE EXCLUSION OF FOUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined: (1) the statement given by the defendant when he was under medication at the hospital should have been suppressed; (2) at trial the judge should have instructed the jury to reject the statement if they found the statement was not voluntarily made; and (3) the defense Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s exclusion of four African-American prospective jurors should have been granted:

At the time of the interrogation, the defendant had recently been in a medically induced coma, had come out of surgery only hours before, and his condition “was still sufficiently serious that he was in the intensive care unit” … . The defendant “was lying on his back on a hospital bed, encumbered by tubes, needles, and breathing apparatus” when the detective approached him … . At the time of the police questioning, the defendant was drowsy from painkillers administered to him, his right arm was handcuffed to the hospital bed, and his left arm was bandaged and immobilized from the earlier surgery. The defendant was positioned upright so that the detective could question him, and when the defendant expressed that this caused him pain and requested medical assistance, the detective denied the request and coerced the defendant by stating that he would obtain medical assistance after he had questioned the defendant. * * *

Where, as here, the defendant has placed in issue the voluntariness of his statements to law enforcement officials, “the court must submit such issue to the jury under instructions to disregard such evidence upon a finding that the statement was involuntarily made” … . * * *

… [T]he record demonstrates that the articulated reasons were not applied equally to exclude other prospective jurors … . Under these circumstances, the prosecutor’s explanations as to the four prospective jurors were pretextual, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial on this ground … . People v Parker, 2024 NY Slip Op 00783, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: The statement given by defendant when he was under medication at the hospital should have been suppressed.

Practice Point: At trial, where defendant has placed the voluntariness of his statement in issue, the jury must be instructed to reject the statement if they find it was not voluntarily made.

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor accepted a juror who was a college student living at home but who was not African-American, and the prosecutor rejected four African-American prospective jurors because they were college students living at home with limited life experience. The Batson challenge should have been granted.

 

,

THE APPELLANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ENTITLING HER TO A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant had raised a question of fact about whether she was served with the summons and complaint requiring a hearing:

Here, the process server’s affidavit of service, in which he averred that he personally served the appellant, constituted prima facie evidence of valid service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) … . However, the Supreme Court erred in determining this branch of the motion without first conducting a hearing. The appellant demonstrated her entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service by submitting, among other evidence, her sworn denial, setting forth significant discrepancies between the description of the person allegedly served and the appellant’s physical appearance … . Under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether service was properly effected pursuant to the personal delivery provisions of CPLR 308(1) … . Matter of Rockman v Nassau County Sheriff’s Dept., 2024 NY Slip Op 00770, Second Det 2-14-24

Practice Point: Here, although plaintiff demonstrated proper service of process, the appellant raised a question of fact about whether she in fact was personally served by noting the process server’s description of the person served did not match her appearance.

 

, ,

THE SEARCH OF A CAR AFTER DEFENDANT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the search of defendant’s car was not a valid search incident to arrest because defendant and the driver had already been removed from the car. The People elected not to rely on the appeal waiver because of the erroneous suppression ruling:

The court improperly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the PCP recovered from the vehicle. As the People concede, the search of the vehicle could not be justified as a search incident to arrest because, at the time of the search, defendant and the driver had already been removed from the car and were in handcuffs. Anything inside of the car was no longer in defendant’s grabbable area or immediate control, and the People failed to demonstrate the existence of exigent circumstances to justify the search … . People v Ortiz, 2024 NY Slip Op 00745, First Dept 2-13-24

Practice Point: Once a defendant has been removed from a car, a search of the car cannot be a search incident to arrest because the interior of the car is no longer in defendant’s grabbable area or immediate control.

 

, ,

IN A MED MAL ACTION PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT NEED NOT HAVE PRACTICED IN THE SAME SPECIALTY AS DEFENDANT DOCTOR TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert laid an adequate foundation for their qualifications in orthopedic medicine. The court noted that plaintiff’s expert need not have practiced in the same specialty as the defendant:

“[A] plaintiff’s expert need not have practiced in the same specialty as the defendant[]” … , and “any alleged lack of knowledge in a particular area of expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony” … . Here, plaintiffs’ expert is board certified as a medical examiner, an orthopedic surgeon and an arthroscopic laser surgeon. The expert completed a residency in general and orthopedic surgery. The expert is now a clinical instructor of orthopedic surgery and a clinical assistant professor of orthopedic surgery. The expert is affiliated with four hospitals and previously served as the chair of the department of orthopedic surgery at one hospital. Thus, we conclude that plaintiffs’ expert “had the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that [the expert’s] opinion[ ] . . . [is] reliable” … . McMahon-DeCarlo v Wickline, 2024 NY Slip Op 00730, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: Although plaintiff’s expert had not practiced in the same specialty as defendant doctor in this med mal action, plaintiff’s expert was qualified to offer reliable expert opinion evidence.

 

,

THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE OFFICER’S ENTRY OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF A SWITCHBLADE; SWITCHBLADE AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SWITCHBLADE SUPPRESSED; IN ADDITION, AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined (1) the search of defendant’s premises and the seizure of switchblade was not justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement and (2) the criminal possession of a weapon conviction must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a weapon third:

The court reasoned that the officer’s entry into defendant’s residence was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search where ” ‘(1) the police . . . have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief [is] grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search [is] not . . . primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there [is] some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched’ ” … . … [T]he first and third elements of the emergency exception were not present at the time the officer entered defendant’s residence because defendant had been secured prior to that time and the officer who conducted the search testified that he did not believe there was anyone else in the residence at that time … .

We therefore modify the judgment by granting that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress the switchblade knife and defendant’s statements relating to the switchblade knife, reversing that part of the judgment convicting defendant of CPW in the third degree as it relates to the switchblade knife, and dismissing count 4 of the indictment … . People v Lee, 2024 NY Slip Op 00718, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: At the time the officer entered defendant’s residence and seized a switchblade all parties had been secured and removed from the residence. The emergency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply.

 

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