You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF “SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED (NO TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION?) BUT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s assault first conviction to assault second, determined the evidence of serious disfigurement was legally insufficient. The issue was not preserved (no motion for a trial order of dismissal on the issue?) but was considered on appeal in the interest of justice:

The People failed to demonstrate that the victim, who sustained a two-to-three-centimeter laceration on her forehead, which required three stitches and resulted in a small scar, suffered a serious disfigurement … . Accordingly, the convictions on those counts must be vacated. However, because the evidence sufficed to prove that the victim suffered a physical injury (Penal Law § 10.00[9]), we reduce the second-degree assault conviction to third-degree assault (Penal Law § 120.00[1]). People v Murray, 2023 NY Slip Op 06454, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: If there is a “legally insufficient evidence” issue, raise it on appeal even if the issue was not preserved by a motion for a trial order of dismissal. The issue may be addressed in the interest of justice.

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that the condition (an irregularly-shaped landing) is open and obvious does not speak to proximate cause but may be relevant to plaintiff’s comparative negligence (which will not defeat a summary judgment motion).. Here there was evidence the landing and the lack of a handrail violated the NYC Building Code. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Plaintiff … raised a material issue of fact as to whether the irregular shape and dimensions of the landing and the lack of a handrail were the causes of his fall through, inter alia, his testimony that the “shortness” and “angle” of the landing caused his ankle to roll and through his expert engineer’s unrebutted affidavit that the “irregular shape” and “shortness” of the landing, which was in violation of the City of New York Building Code, and the lack of a handrail, proximately caused the fall.

The lower court’s assessment that the landing’s purported dangerous defects were open and obvious has no bearing upon the central, threshold issue of whether there was a causal connection between the defects and the plaintiff’s injury … . Further, it is axiomatic that the open and obvious nature of a hazard pertains to an owner’s duty to warn of such danger but does “not eliminate a claim that the presence of the hazardous condition constituted a violation of the property owner’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . Perry v Sada Three, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06456, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, the “open and obvious” character of the condition has no bearing to the issue whether the defects caused plaintiff’s injury.

 

, ,

IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE A PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE PLAINTIFF MOVES TO DISMISS THE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The court noted that plaintiff’s comparative negligence in a traffic accident case is usually not considered on a summary judgment motion except where, as here, plaintiff moved to dismiss the defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense:

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault in establishing his or her prima facie case against a defendant on the issue of that defendant’s liability … . “[However], the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability where, as here, the plaintiff also seeks dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence”… . A motion for]summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” (CPLR 3212[b] …). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … . Garutti v Kim Co Refrig. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 06354, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: If a plaintiff in a traffic accident case makes a motion for summary judgment which includes a motion to dismiss defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense, the plaintiff’s comparative negligence can properly be considered by the motion court.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Bloom was entitled to a hearing on whether she was served with the summons and complaint:

Here, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server indicated that the process server served Bloom at an address on Avenue W in Brooklyn (hereinafter the Avenue W address) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint upon a cotenant, who was a person of suitable age and discretion, on May 4, 2019, and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to Bloom at the Avenue W address on May 6, 2019. However, Bloom’s submission of a sworn statement in which she denied that she resided at the Avenue W address, and a copy of her driver license, which listed a different address as her residence at the time that service upon her was allegedly effectuated, contained specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit … . Therefore, the presumption of proper service upon Bloom was rebutted and the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether Bloom was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … . Garrick v Charles, 2023 NY Slip Op 06353, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: Here defendant presented specific facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper services of process. A hearing should have been ordered.

 

,

THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON FOR THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE LISTED BUT NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE REPORT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed in this foreclosure action because, although the documents the referee relied on were listed, the documents were not submitted. Therefore the report was hearsay:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “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” … . Ridgewood Sav. Bank v Kapoor, 2023 NY Slip Op 06396, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action the fact that the documents relied upon for the referee’s report were identified was not enough. Because the documents were not submitted, the report constituted inadmissible hearsay.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN IME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to renew should have been granted and defendant should have been granted more time to conduct an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff:

“A motion for leave to renew or reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . A motion for leave to reargue “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[d][2]). A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought” … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without prejudice, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew. The defendant presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present such facts on the prior motion, and demonstrated that the new evidence would have changed the prior determination … . Moreover, the papers submitted by the defendant in support of the motion, as supplemented by the papers submitted by the plaintiff, which expressly incorporated the plaintiff’s prior opposition, were sufficient to determine the motion …. Fulcher v Empire State Grand Council Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite Masons, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06352, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: The motion to renew presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present those facts in the prior motion. The motion should have been granted.

 

,

THE BOARD’S REVERSAL OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S FINDING CLAIMANT HAD NOT MADE A WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION WAS BASED ON SPECULATION AND SURMISE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined the Board’s finding that claimant made a willful misrepresentation was based upon speculation and surmise:

… [T]he Board reversed the WCLJ, who had found “no evidence of a wi[l]lful misrepresentation with the intent to deceive either the Board or the carrier or anyone [who] has an interest.” The Board’s contrary determination relied in part upon what it characterized as a discrepancy between claimant’s testimony during two different appearances. In 2015, during a brief appearance to find jurisdiction and set the matter for trial, claimant’s attorney asked her whether she was “suing any third party for injuries,” and she responded, “Yes.” Her attorney then immediately asked, “Only this claim?” to which she also replied, “Yes.” The WCLJ interjected, “We have to ask to see if there is a Supreme Court action.” Claimant’s attorney then asked about the date of the next hearing[*3], the WCLJ stated a time and expected duration and the employer’s attorney is recorded as having added, “Case was not even filed.” The WCLJ then directed that the record be held, and an off-record discussion took place, after which the appearance concluded. In 2016, claimant was asked during a hearing whether she had sued anyone, and she repeatedly denied having done so. When questioned about the foregoing in 2021, she explained that the 2016 denial was based upon her belief that, because she was no longer pursuing her third-party action, it did not constitute bringing a lawsuit.

The Workers’ Compensation Board characterized claimant’s 2015 testimony as “confirm[ing] that she was suing a third party.” It noted the significance of the inconsistency between that purported confirmation and her subsequent denials, discredited her 2021 explanation that she denied having sued anyone because she lacked understanding of the law and concluded that she willfully made false statements in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a.

… [W]e find the Board’s characterization of claimant’s 2015 testimony to be based upon speculation and surmise … . Matter of Salvia v Nutritional Frontiers LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06177, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: Where the Workers’ Compensation Board reverses a finding by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge based solely upon surmise and speculation, the court will reverse the Board.

 

, , ,

THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE THE STATUTE CONFERRED IMMUNITY ON DEFENDANT NURSING HOME RE: COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE COVID PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined that the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), which conferred immunity on nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, precluded the COVID-related negligence action against defendant nursing home. The Third Department ruled that the repeal of the EDTPA should not be applied retroactively. Therefore the statute was in effect at the relevant time. The Third Department further held that the evidence of proper COVID-19 precautions offered by the nursing home was not refuted by the plaintiff:

… [T]he ultimate repeal of the EDTPA contained no express indicator of retroactivity — rather, the Legislature simply stated that the repeal would “take effect immediately” … . * * *

Turning to plaintiff’s argument that retroactivity is appropriate because the repeal was remedial in nature, “[c]lassifying a statute as ‘remedial’ does not automatically overcome the strong presumption of prospectivity since the term may broadly encompass any attempt to supply some defect or abridge some superfluity in the former law” … . Based upon all of the foregoing, and noting that the retroactive application of the repeal of the EDTPA would merely punish healthcare providers “for past conduct they cannot change — an objective [that has been] deemed illegitimate as a justification for retroactivity” … we hold that the repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive … . Whitehead v Pine Haven Operating LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06180, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) should not be applied retroactively to remove immunity related to COVID precautions conferred on a nursing home during the life of the statute.

 

,

THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER-INMATE’S RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF ONE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION AND EXPUNGEMENT OF ANOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled one misbehavior determination and expunged another because petitioner was denied his right to call witnesses:

… [The Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request to call as a witness one of the correction officers who was present during the search of petitioner’s cell and endorsed the second misbehavior report (see 7 NYCRR 254.5). Given the passage of time, respondent does not seek a rehearing and requests that the determination in relation to the second misbehavior report be annulled.

… [T]he determination in relation to the first misbehavior report must also be annulled on the ground that petitioner was improperly denied his right to call a witness. The record reflects that petitioner, who denied the assault and claimed he was being set up, requested to call as a witness the alleged victim of the assault. Although there was a discussion at the hearing that the alleged victim would have to agree to testify, there is no indication that the alleged victim refused to testify or that the Hearing Officer made any effort to procure him as a witness. “[W]here the record does not reflect any reason for the witness’ refusal to testify, or that any inquiry was made of him [or her] as to why he [or she] refused or that the [H]earing [O]fficer communicated with the witness to verify his [or her] refusal to testify, there has been a denial of the [incarcerated individual’s] right to call witnesses as provided in the regulations” (… see 7 NYCRR 254.5). As we view the unexplained outright denial of a witness commensurate to the denial of petitioner’s constitutional right to call witnesses, expungement rather than remittal for a new hearing is the appropriate remedy … . Matter of Diaz v Annucci, 2023 NY Slip Op 06187, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: In prison misbehavior proceedings the erroneous or unexplained denial of an inmate’s right to call witnesses is reversible error.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was 150 feet away from a broken utility pole which needed to be removed. The pole was damaged when struck by a vehicle and the attached electric wires were live. Plaintiff was injured diving under a truck when there was an explosion as the pole was being hoisted:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the work they were performing at the time of the incident constituted routine maintenance or repairs not within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6) … . The defendants’ evidentiary submissions indicated that the incident occurred while the defendants were hoisting a portion of the utility pole to enable the total replacement of the pole, which had been severely damaged after a vehicle hit the pole. Thus, the defendants’ evidentiary submissions did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the work involved merely “replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” …. . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no authority to supervise or control the work being performed by the defendants’ own employees at the time of the incident … . Further, to the extent the plaintiff alleged that the incident was caused by a dangerous condition, the defendants did not address the issues of whether they created or had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition … . Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 … . Ricottone v PSEG Long Is., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 241(6) does not apply to routine maintenance. Replacing a utility pole struck by a vehicle is not routine maintenance.

Practice Point: Where there is a question of fact about the cause of dangerous condition and whether defendant has supervisory control over the worksite, summary judgment in favor of defendant on a Labor Law 200 cause of action is precluded.

 

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