You are here: / Evidence
,

GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the defendant property-owner in this ladder-fall case was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability because the work related to a commercial purpose:

“Although the Labor Law generally imposes liability for worker safety on property owners and contractors, it exempts from liability ‘owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work'” ( … Labor Law §§ 240[1]; 241[6]). However, “[t]he exemption ‘was not intended to insulate from liability owners who use their one- or two-family houses purely for commercial purposes'” … . “‘[R]enovating a residence for resale or rental plainly qualifies as work being performed for a commercial purpose'” … . “Where the property serves both residential and commercial purposes, [a] determination as to whether the exemption applies in a particular case turns on the nature of the site and the purpose of the work being performed, and must be based on the owner’s intentions at the time of the injury” … .

Here, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he was entitled to the homeowner’s exemption, including whether the work being performed related to a commercial purpose of the premises … and whether the defendant intended to use the premises as a three-family dwelling … .  Reyes v Rahman, 2025 NY Slip Op 06348, Second Dept 11-19-25

Practice Point: The homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 240(1) liability does not apply where the home is used for commercial purposes.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no liability under Labor Law 240(1) because plaintiff fell going down permanent steps after he stepped off the ladder:

Plaintiff testified that on the day of his accident he was working in a meeting room that had projection screens, soundproof walls, and raised floors, including a platform for the speakers. The platform had two access points — one via a ramp and the other on the opposite side of the platform, via a two-step staircase. Plaintiff needed to work on the ceiling above the platform, so he placed his ladder on the platform near the staircase. After he completed his work, he descended the ladder and placed both feet on the platform floor. He then turned to walk down the two-step staircase, missed a step, and fell.

There is no liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) where the plaintiff’s injuries are not related to the failure of a safety device, such as a ladder, to protect the plaintiff from a gravity-related hazard … . Where the “injury results from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first instance, no [Labor Law § 240(1)] liability exists” … . Healy v Trinity Hudson Holdings, 2025 NY Slip Op 06278, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: The failure of absence of a safety device is a prerequisite for liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here plaintiff safely stepped onto a permanent platform from the ladder and then fell going down permanent steps—no Labor Law 240(1) liability.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT MOVED AND HE FELL; THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was standing at the top of the unsecured ladder when it moved and he fell. The fact that there were no witnesses to the accident did not raise a question fact because plaintiff’s testimony was not contradicted and his credibility was not called into question:

Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he worked at the top of the ladder, which was unsecured, it suddenly moved and fell, causing him to land on the floor and injure his shoulder. Plaintiff also testified that after he fell from the ladder, he stood it back up before his supervisor returned. The supervisor stated that upon his return to the room, plaintiff, who was standing next to the upright ladder, told him that the ladder was shaky and had fallen because no one was holding it.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The evidence established that defendant failed to provide a safety device to ensure that the ladder, which plaintiff was instructed to use, would remain upright while he worked. The evidence also showed that plaintiff fell off the ladder when it shifted and fell … . This evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and plaintiff was not obligated to show that the ladder itself was defective … . Molina v Chatham Towers, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06285, First Dept 11-18-25

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a ladder-fall case, it is enough that the ladder was unsecured and moved. There is no need to show the ladder was defective.

 

,

CONTRARY TO THE STANDARD USED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, AN SLU NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ANY PRIOR SLU TO THE SAME PART OF THE BODY; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROPER STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing and remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board applied the wrong standard for compensation for an injury to a member for which an SLU had been made for a prior injury. The Board used the erroneous standard that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member:”

The Court of Appeals has clarified … that successive and “separate SLU awards for different injuries to the same statutory member are contemplated by [Workers’ Compensation Law §] 15 and, when a claimant proves that the second injury, ‘considered by itself and not in conjunction with the previous disability,’ has caused an increased loss of use, the claimant is entitled to an SLU award commensurate with that increased loss of use” … . Thus, a claimant’s entitlement to an additional SLU award for a successive injury to the same statutory member “turns upon the sufficiency of the medical proof adduced” … . “Such demonstration may include medical evidence that a prior injury and the current injury to the same member are ‘separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use of [the subject member]’ and that the current injury resulted in a greater degree of loss of use of the body member in question ‘beyond that . . . [of] the prior injury’ ” … .

… [T]he standard articulated and then applied by the Board, which relied solely upon Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ. (164 AD3d at 1510), was that an SLU “must always be reduced by the amount of any prior SLU to the same statutory member” (emphasis supplied). The Board is not required to reduce or offset the SLU by the prior SLU where a “claimant demonstrates that a subsequent injury increased the loss of use of a body member beyond that resulting from the prior injury” (Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 38 NY3d at 444). Given that the Board’s decision did not consider, or otherwise ascertain the credibility of, the conflicting medical evidence that was before it — which included documentary and testimonial evidence from claimant’s treating physician — regarding the extent to which claimant’s injuries were “separate pathologies that each individually caused a particular amount of loss of use” of his right leg … , the Board’s finding of a 12.5% SLU of the right leg must be reversed and the matter remitted for further consideration by the Board in accordance with the holding in Matter of Johnson [supra]. Matter of Krein v Green Haven Corr. Facility, 2025 NY Slip Op 06238, Third Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: When an SLU has been made for a prior injury, a subsequent SLU for the same part of the body need not be reduced by the amount of the prior SLU. The claimant can submit medical evidence that the injuries are separate pathologies which individually caused a specific amount of loss of use.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DEMONSTRATED A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR NOT TIMELY FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE AFTER A NINETY-DAY DEMAND, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH RELIED ON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY TWO SOURCES, BUT DID NOT SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS FROM THOSE SOURCES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, although plaintiff offered a justifiable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue, plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Therefore the complaint should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged the defendants negligently failed to provide adequate mental health and substance abuse treatment to the decedent, who died of a drug overdose in a shelter owned and operated by defendants:

Following a period of over one year during which plaintiff failed to respond to their discovery demands, defendants served plaintiff with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days (see CPLR 3216[b]). Plaintiff failed to respond within the 90-day period, resulting in defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Although plaintiff’s counsel offered a justifiable excuse for the failure to file a note of issue following defendants’ service of 90-day notices, plaintiff failed to submit an adequate affidavit of merit demonstrating a meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants’ motions … . In her affidavit, plaintiff, who had no personal knowledge of the events in question, relied on two unnamed hearsay sources … . Plaintiff offered no excuse for failing to provide affidavits from the shelter residents who supplied her with the information upon which her affidavit was based … , and, in any event, she did not show that defendants’ negligence was “a substantial cause of the events” resulting in her son’s death … . Felipe v Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., 2025 NY Slip Op 06252, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: In seeking to avoid dismissal of a complaint for failing to timely file a note of issue after a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must offer a justifiable excuse and demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Here plaintiff’s counsel provided a justifiable excuse. But to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action plaintiff submitted an affidavit which relied on hearsay. Without affidavits from the sources of the hearsay, a meritorious cause of action was not demonstrated and the complaint should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD” FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A POLICE CHASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS INJURED WHEN HER PATROL CAR WAS STRUCK BY THE PURSUED CAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant police officer, Encarnation, acted with “reckless disregard” during a police chase. The pursued car crashed into plaintiff police officer’s, Corsi’s, patrol car. Defendant Encarnation worked for the Village of Ossining police department. Plaintiff Corsi worked for the Village of Briarcliff Manor police department. Plaintiff sued both Encarnation and the Village of Ossining:

The plaintiff commenced the instant action against, among others, the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c(6) for the reimbursement of all salary, benefits, and expenses paid by the plaintiff to Corsi as a result of injuries she sustained in the line of duty due to the allegedly reckless or negligent conduct of the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion that took place during Encarnacion’s pursuit of Hester and Hester’s eventual crash into Corsi’s vehicle. * * *

… [T]he Village of Ossining and Encarnacion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Encarnacion acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and whether such conduct was a proximate cause of Corsi’s injuries … . In support of their motion, the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Encarnacion, Hester, and Corsi, who collectively testified that on the day at issue, Encarnacion pursued Hester at high speeds through residential and commercial roads and that Hester struck another vehicle and narrowly avoided striking pedestrians during the chase. Village of Briarcliff Manor v Village of Ossining, 2025 NY Slip Op 06214, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the evidence which will raise a question of fact whether a police officer, during an emergency car-chase, acted with “reckless disregard” for the safety of others such that a police officer injured when the pursued car crashed into her patrol car can sue pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c (6).

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT A “NON-MILITARY AFFIDAVIT” DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT IS NOT IN THE MILITARY IS A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING A MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT A GROUND FOR VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNLESS THE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATES HE OR SHE WAS, IN FACT, IN THE MILITARY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, determined: (1) although the default judgement in this breach of contract action was improperly entered because a so-called “non-military affidavit” demonstrating defendant was not in the military was not submitted by the plaintiff, the absence of a “non-military affidavit” does not warrant vacatur of the default judgment unless the defendant demonstrates he or she was, in fact, in the military (not the case here); and (2) because the damages in this breach of contract action were estimated and were not for a “sum certain,” an inquest is required. Here plaintiff hired defendant to do concrete work for a construction project. The complaint alleged the work was not completed and sought estimated damages over $900,000:

It is clear that a non-military affidavit is counted amongst the proof required for a movant to meet its burden on a motion for leave to enter a default judgment. A movant’s failure to provide a non-military affidavit is sufficient to warrant denial of such a motion in the first instance … . * * *

It … that the [New York State Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act] carves out a remedy for vacatur of default judgments … . However, this remedy is limited to applications made “by or on behalf of the servicemember” and “for the purpose of allowing the servicemember to defend the action” under certain circumstances. The statutory text does not support the defendants’ assertion that any person may seek to vacate a default judgment based on a failure to comply with the Act. Therefore, we hold that a movant’s failure to provide a non-military affidavit does not entitle a defendant to vacatur of an otherwise validly entered default judgment as of right. Where, as here, the defaulting party has made no assertion of being on active military duty at the time of his or her default, he or she falls outside of the protection afforded by the Act. * * *

“Where the damages sought are for a ‘sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain,'” CPLR 3215(a) permits the clerk, upon proper proof, to enter judgment up to the amount demanded in the complaint, without notice to the defendant … . Otherwise, an application to the court pursuant to CPLR 3215 is required and an inquest is appropriate to assess damages … . Where damages cannot be determined without extrinsic proof, an inquest is required … . Tri-Rail Designers & Bldrs., Inc. v Concrete Superstructures, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06209, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: The New York State Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act requires a plaintiff seeking a default judgment to submit a “non-military affidavit” demonstrating defendant is not in the military. Consult this decision for instruction on how to do that. Failure to submit a “non-military affidavit” is a valid ground for denial of a motion for a default judgment but, it is not enough to warrant vacatur of a default judgment. Defendant must prove he or she was, in fact, in the military to warrant vacatur on this ground.

Practice Point: If damages are not based on a “sum certain,” where plaintiff seeks a default judgment, an inquest to determine damages is required.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, I.E., THE DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF EMAILS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence, i.e., the failure to preserve relevant emails. The plaintiffs alleged defendants performed faulty renovation-work and thereby breached the renovation contract:

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126” … . “The Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence” … . “A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . “‘A culpable state of mind for [the] purposes of a spoliation sanction includes ordinary negligence'” … . Further, “[s]triking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct and, in order to impose such a sanction, the court ‘will consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . “In contrast, where the moving party has not been deprived of the ability to establish his or her case or defense, a less severe sanction is appropriate” … . “[A]dverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate even in situations where the evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed” … .

… [P]laintiffs demonstrated that the defendants were on notice that they had an obligation to preserve their email accounts and emails prior to the time that they were lost or destroyed. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that the emails were lost or destroyed with a culpable state of mind and that the emails were sufficiently relevant to the litigation … . Nonetheless, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the drastic remedy of striking the defendants’ answer was not warranted … . Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer to the extent of directing that an adverse inference charge be issued at trial against the defendants with respect to the loss or destruction of their email accounts and emails … . Dorman v Luva of NY, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the criteria for finding spoliation of evidence and the appropriate sanctions. In this breach of contract action, plaintiffs demonstrated defendants destroyed or lost relevant emails with a “culpable state of mind.”

 

, ,

7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the 7/8 height-differential between the floor and the threshold was trivial as a matter of law in thus slip and fall case. The court noted that the NYC Building Code, which requires a height-differential of no more than 1/2 inch did not apply to the home which was purchased in 1980:

The 7/8-inch height differential between defendant’s kitchen tile floor and the door saddle is readily discernible from the photographs authenticated by plaintiff, and the alleged defect had none of the characteristics of a trap or snare … . Plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that she was not distracted and could see the door saddle before the accident. Plaintiff had repeatedly walked over the saddle in the days leading up to her accident and had noticed the raised condition of the door saddle … . Defendant was not required to provide an expert’s affidavit to make a prima facie showing that the height differential was trivial … . * * *

“Existing buildings are generally exempt from the provisions of the current [New York City Building Code] unless there is substantial renovation or change in use” … . Defendant testified that the linoleum flooring adjacent to the door saddle was changed to tile in the “late” 1990s. However, plaintiff’s professional engineer made no showing that changing the flooring constituted a substantial renovation or change in use causing the 2008, 2010, and 2022 Building Codes to apply. Mejias v Basch, 2025 NY Slip Op 06137, First Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Here a 7/8 inch height differential between the floor and a doorway threshold was deemed trivial as a matter of law and the slip and fall case was dismissed. The Building Code, which requires a height differential of no more than 1/2 inch, did not apply because the home was purchased before that building code provision was enacted.

 

, , ,

THE “REFRAIN FROM GANG-RELATED ASSOCIATIONS” PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE STRUCK BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD ANY CONNECTION WITH GANGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a probation condition imposed by the court must be stricken because it was not shown to be related to “defendant’s rehabilitative prospects:”​

Defendant’s challenges to two of his probation conditions as unrelated to his rehabilitation do not require preservation and survive his waiver of the right to appeal … . * * *

… [T]he probation condition requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation” must be stricken, as there is no evidence that defendant’s crime was connected to any gang activities or that he has any history of gang membership or gang … . Accordingly, this condition was not reasonably necessary to further defendant’s rehabilitative prospects based on his background and proclivities …. . People v Holguin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06141, First Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Challenges to probation conditions need not be preserved for appeal and survive a waiver of appeal.

Practice Point: The appellate courts will strike probation conditions which are not demonstrated to be relevant to the defendant’s offense. Two other decisions, not summarized here, were released this week in which the probation condition requiring defendant to financially support dependents was struck because it was not shown to be relevant to defendant’s rehabilitation for the charged offense. (People v Bonfante, 2025 NY Slip Op 06068, Second Dept 11-6-25;  People v Larkin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06077, Second Dept 11-6-25)

 

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