You are here: / Evidence
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. The village code requires that the board of trustees be given written notice of the defect in order to hold the village liable. Here there was a letter from the town engineer to the abutting homeowners notifying them of the sidewalk defect and requiring repair within 30 days. The majority held that letter did not meet the written notice requirements in the code, which must be strictly construed. the dissent disagreed:

Where … a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, neither actual nor constructive notice of a condition satisfies the prior written notice requirement … . Records generated by other agencies of the Village, outside of the strict construction of Code of the Village of Garden City § 132-2, fail to satisfy the requirements of the relevant prior written notice law … .. On this record, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any documents to or from other municipal employees found their way to the Village Board of Trustees so as to cognizably qualify as prior written notice under the terms of the Village Code.

Our learned dissenting colleague concludes that the plaintiffs, through the submission of a letter on the Village’s letterhead dated May 11, 2015, from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village Board of Trustees had prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defects. … The letter … states … that a recent inspection of the sidewalk and/or driveway apron adjacent to the defendant homeowners’ property indicated that concrete was in need of repair or replacement. The letter continues, stating that it was necessary to repair or replace a defective sidewalk and/or driveway apron for safety reasons and to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits against the property owners and the Village. For these reasons … the Village Board of Trustees had adopted a resolution … providing that property owners are required to repair or replace defective or damaged sidewalks and/or driveway aprons fronting their property within 30 days of receiving notice of such defects. Strictly construing the terms of the Village’s prior written notice law, as we must … that letter from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners does not constitute the giving of prior written notice to the Village Board of Trustees. … . Kolenda v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2023 NY Slip Op 01783, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village code required that written notice of a sidewalk defect be provided to the board of trustees. A letter from the village engineer to the abutting homeowners requiring repair of the defect did not meet the code’s written-notice requirements, which must be strictly construed. Therefore the village cannot be held liable for the slip and fall.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse (law office failure) for not attending the settlement conference and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff’s allegation of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated. In an affirmation in support of the motion … to vacate the order of dismissal, the plaintiff’s counsel described her office’s standard practices and procedures for receiving and processing notices and orders, and posited that her office had not received notice of the scheduled conference because there were “no notes, scanned images, or calendar steps” in the files that she reviewed. The plaintiff … failed to provide an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure, provide any details regarding such failure, or provide any other evidence of the system’s purported breakdown that led to counsel’s nonappearance at the conference … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order of dismissal … . Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse its default, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hutchinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01782, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the claim that plaintiff missed the settlement conference due to law office failure was not supported by proof from a person with first hand knowledge. The motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall complaint should not have been dismissed because plaintiff did not know what the wet substance on the step was:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she slipped and fell on a wet step … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s alleged inability to identify the “precise nature of the wet substance upon which she allegedly slipped and fell cannot be equated with a failure to identify the cause of her fall” … . Diaz v SCG 502, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01779, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet step. Her inability to identify the wet substance was not an inability to identify the cause of her fall.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant restaurant (ABB) did not demonstrated when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell had been last inspected prior to the fall. Therefore ABB did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet condition:

ABB … failed to demonstrate … that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Although ABB’s witness testified that the accident occurred five minutes after the witness had entered the restaurant and observed the floor to be dry, the plaintiff testified that the accident occurred at least one hour later, and ABB did not submit any evidence as to when it last inspected the area prior to the time when the plaintiff asserted the accident occurred … . Carey v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01773, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case, the defendants must show where the area of the fall was last inspected prior to the fall to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Dr. Subramanyam’s motion to set aside the verdict apportioning liability to him in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff experienced abdominal and was referred by her primary physician (defendant Dr. Selitsky) to Dr. Subramanyam for a gynecological exam. Dr. Subramanyam’ noted in his report that “no abnormalities” were found. Plaintiff argued the “no abnormalities” finding misled Dr. Selitsky causing a delay in diagnosis of plaintiff’s appendicitis:

We find that the record was insufficient to support the jury’s findings that Dr. Subramanyam’s notation of “no abnormalities” misled Dr. Selitsky, who was plaintiff’s primary care physician, and thereby delayed plaintiff’s treatment for appendicitis.

Defendant Dr. Selitsky, testified that she did not rely upon Dr. Subramanyam’s sonogram report in ruling in or out the possibility of appendicitis, a diagnosis she already had considered as part of her differential diagnosis. She further testified that her referral of plaintiff to Dr. Subramanyam was solely to determine whether the source of plaintiff’s pain was gynecological in origin. Furthermore, Dr. Selitsky testified that while she assumed that she had received a copy of the report, she could not recall reading it, and, if she had read it, when she did so. Dr. Subramanyam also testified that it was not within his role to provide recommendations in his report or advise physicians what they should do next. Ameziani v Subramanyam, 2023 NY Slip Op 01759, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Defendant primary care doctor referred plaintiff to defendant gynecologist to determine the cause of abdominal pain. The gynecologist noted in his report he found “no abnormalities.” Plaintiff alleged that notation misled the primary care physician causing delay in the diagnosis of appendicitis. The appellate division set aside the verdict against the gynecologist.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT, BUT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this breach of contract action did not demonstrate the alleged cost of correcting defendant’s defective work was fair and reasonable. Therefore summary judgment on the damages amount should not have been granted:

To recover damages for breach of contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate “the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant’s breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach” … . Here, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action. The plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that the defendant breached the agreement by not following the specifications provided by NYSTA [New York State Transit Authority]. … [T]he Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action.

The Supreme Court erred, however, in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of damages on the breach of contract cause of action. “In an action seeking damages for breach of a construction contract, the proper measure of damages is the fair and reasonable market price for correcting the defective installation” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the costs it incurred in correcting the defective work were fair and reasonable … . Ben Ciccone, Inc. v Naber Elec. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01656, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff may be entitled to summary judgment on whether defendant breached a contract and still be denied summary judgment on the amount of damages.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required in this custody proceeding:

“Custody determinations . . . require a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the material facts and circumstances in order to permit the court to ascertain the optimal result for the child” … . Accordingly, “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “[W]here . . . facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a custody hearing is required” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in making a final custody determination without a hearing and without inquiring into the best interests of the parties’ child … . Matter of Bendter v Elikwu, 2023 NY Slip Op 01670, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Factual issues raised in a custody proceeding should not be decided without a hearing.

 

, , ,

PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT AND THE SANCTIONED PARTY WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the discover sanctions imposed by the judge on plaintiff were not warranted:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by imposing the drastic sanction of preclusion upon the plaintiff without affording the plaintiff adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, including on facts relevant to whether the plaintiff’s noncompliance was willful and contumacious. The defendant did not move for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the interim order, nor did the court make its own motion or include language in the interim order warning that noncompliance would result in sanctions. The court also made its determination without oral argument, such that it is unclear what opportunity the plaintiff had to explain the circumstances of its noncompliance. …

… [E]ven if the plaintiff had been provided with adequate due process, the Supreme Court still would have improvidently exercised its discretion by, inter alia, precluding the plaintiff from serving further demands and from introducing certain documents. The record contains no showing of “a clear pattern of willfulness and contumacious conduct necessary to justify [such] sanctions” … . There is no indication that the plaintiff “repeated[ly] fail[ed] to comply with court-ordered discovery” or “fail[ed] to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time” … . Instead, this case involves a “single incident of noncompliance” with a court order, which was insufficient to warrant a sanction as drastic as preclusion … , especially given the policy of resolving cases on their merits and the fact that discovery was still ongoing at the time the court made its determination. Korsinsky & Klein, LLP v FHS Consultants, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01667, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point; Before precluding evidence as a discovery sanction, there must be a finding of willful and contumacious conduct and the the sanctioned party must be given a chance to explain the failure to comply with discovery orders.

 

, ,

​ THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE TRIAL WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; A MIDTRIAL RODRIGUEZ HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing to determine whether a witness’s identification of defendant was confirmatory, noted that the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory for the first time based on the witness’s trial testimony. A Rodriguez hearing should have been when the issue came up at trial:

The witness in question disclosed on cross-examination at trial that he had identified defendant as the assailant in a photograph shown to him by the police. The People’s CPL 710.30 notice did not reference this identification. Defense counsel thus asked the court to strike the witness’s testimony on the ground of lack of notice, but the court, relying on the witness’s trial testimony, ruled that the People were not required to give notice because the identification was confirmatory. That was error. As the Court of Appeals has made clear, “prior familiarity should not be resolved at trial in the first instance” (Rodriguez, 79 NY2d at 452 …), and, in any event, the witness’s trial testimony was not sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the identification was confirmatory.

Although the witness testified that he knew defendant because he had seen him “a couple of times” at the barber shop, and that the two had each other’s phone numbers, he also testified that he did not know defendant well, that he knew him only by a common nickname, and that they never spoke again after the assault. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing would have allowed defense counsel to flesh out the extent of the relationship between the two men, thereby allowing the court to make a more informed determination as to whether the pretrial identification of defendant was confirmatory as a matter of law. People v Alcaraz-ubiles, 2023 NY Slip Op 01637, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: If the defense is not given notice of a witness’s identification of the defendant, the witness cannot testify about the identification unless it was “confirmatory,” I.e., based on knowing the defendant. Here the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory based on the witness’s trial testimony. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing should have been held. The matter was remitted.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of implied contract and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of implied cause of action based on documentary evidence should not have been granted:

“Whether an implied-in-fact contract was formed and, if so, the extent of its terms, involves factual issues regarding the intent of the parties and the surrounding circumstances” … . Contrary to the court’s determination, whether plaintiff “can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss” … and, here, plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently state a cause of action for breach of an implied contract arising from an implicit agreement to extend the brokerage contract … . Similarly, the complaint sufficiently alleges the elements of a claim for unjust enrichment … .

… “A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) will be granted if the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the [plaintiff’s] claim[s]” … . Although contracts are among the types of documentary evidence that may be considered for purposes of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) … , we conclude that the contract submitted by defendants in support of their motion failed to “utterly refute . . . plaintiff’s allegations [that the contract was implicitly extended] or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law” … . University Hill Realty, Ltd v Akl, 2023 NY Slip Op 01634, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the breach of implied contract cause of action should not have been dismissed.

Practice Point: The motion to dismiss the breach of  implied contract cause of action based on documentary evidence should not have been granted. Although a contract can be the type of evidence which qualifies as “documentary evidence” here the contract did not utterly refute the allegation the contract was extended.

 

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