You are here: / Evidence
, ,

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.

 

,

THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY BROKEN GLASS IN A DOOR WAS CAPTURED ON VIDEO WHICH WAS NEGLIGENTLY ERASED; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE GLASS BROKE WHEN PLAINTIFF PULLED ON THE DOOR; AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUILDING’S SECURITY COMPANY WHO SAW THE VIDEO CLAIMED PLAINTIFF PUNCHED THE GLASS; PRECLUSION OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE VIDEO WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the video showing plaintiff’s injury from broken glass in a door was negligently, not intentionally, erased. Therefore the proper sanction was an adverse inference charge, not the preclusion of any evidence about the contents of the video. Plaintiff alleged the glass broke when plaintiff pulled on the door. Williams, an employee of the building-security company who viewed the video, claimed plaintiff punched the glass:

… [P]laintiff showed that the defendants had an obligation to preserve the video surveillance footage of the incident at the time that the footage was destroyed. Williams learned that the glass in the door was broken the same day that the incident occurred, and she investigated and documented it. Furthermore, the defendants’ site manager testified at a deposition that the plaintiff’s mother called after the incident to report that the plaintiff’s arm had gone through the glass in the door, causing “severe injury,” and that he was in the hospital. After receiving this report, the site manager testified, she spoke with Williams and learned that Williams had viewed video surveillance footage depicting the incident and had created an incident report. “Given the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries and the immediate documentation and investigation into the accident by the defendants’ employee[ ], the defendants were on notice of possible litigation and thus under an obligation to preserve any evidence that might be needed for future litigation” … . * * *

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendants from presenting any evidence regarding Williams’s observations of the video surveillance footage, as this sanction disproportionately eliminated their defense to this action. Instead, under the circumstances, including the negligent, rather than intentional, destruction of the video surveillance footage and the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff, the court should have directed that an adverse inference charge be given against the defendants at trial with respect to the video surveillance footage of the incident … . Battle v Fulton Park Site 4 Houses, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00114, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: Here preclusion of testimony about the contents of a negligently (not intentionally) erased video which depicted the incident was deemed too severe a spoliation sanction because preclusion eliminated the only defense to the action. An adverse inference charge was deemed the appropriate sanction.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION ON AN EVIDENTIARY GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure action should not have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on an evidentiary ground which was not raised by the defendant:

Plaintiff … moved for summary judgment, submitting an affirmation by counsel, to which the loan documents were annexed, and an affidavit from the same first vice president, which did not attach the subject loan documents. The affiant attested that defendant failed to make monthly payments and that defendant owed plaintiff $2,302,848.55 through June 15, 2024. He did not attest that he based his knowledge of the default and amount due on his review of any records. Defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion.

… Although it is the movant’s burden to establish its entitlement to summary judgment and the failure of the nonmovant to oppose summary judgment does not obviate the movant’s need to establish its prima facie case … , “a court should not examine the admissibility of evidence submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment unless the nonmoving party has specifically raised that issue in its opposition to the motion” … . This is because courts “are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” … .

On its original motion, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing, through the affidavit of a first vice president who was also the loan officer in charge of the loan’s collection and enforcement, the existence of the consolidated note, consolidated mortgage, and the existence and amount of defendant’s default … . Defendant did not oppose the motion and thus did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence, and the court should not have raised evidentiary objections sua sponte … . Valley Natl. Bank v Community Prot. Church of Co-op City, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00036, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: A judge should not, sua sponte, deny a motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the nonmoving party.

 

, ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED DRUGS TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR IN THE PAST; THE 15 POINT ASSESSMENT UNDER RISK FACTOR 11 WAS THEREFORE ELIMINATED, REDUCING THE RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reducing the SORA risk assessment from level three to level two, determined the evidence did not support assessing 15 points for using drugs to excess:

“In order to support the assessment of points under risk factor 11, . . . the People must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offender used drugs or alcohol in excess either at the time of the crime or repeatedly in the past” … . Here, the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s marijuana use on the date of the offense was excessive or “causally linked to the sexual assault” … . The People’s evidence was also insufficient to establish that the defendant used marijuana or other substances in excess repeatedly in the past … . Without the assessment of points under risk factor 11, the defendant’s point total was 100, which is within the range for a presumptive level two designation. People v Gregory, 2025 NY Slip Op 07420, Second Dept 12-31-25

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED REVERSAL AFTER TRIAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment (without prejudice), determined the prosecutor erroneously failed to explain the justification defense to the grand jury. Although defendant had a knife, there was evidence the victim had a gun and was the initial aggressor:

If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment (see id. § 210.35[5] …). “‘[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . “Where the evidence before the grand jury supports it, the charge on justification must be given” … .

“In determining whether the evidence supports a justification defense, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant” … . Here, a surveillance video shown to the grand jury indicated that the defendant approached Graves inside a store while holding a knife. Nevertheless, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant was not the initial aggressor, Graves pointed a gun at the defendant, the defendant stabbed Graves to defend himself from the imminent use of deadly physical force against him, and the defendant could not safely retreat (see Penal Law § 35.15[2][a] …). People v Mead, 2025 NY Slip Op 07412, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Where the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant satisfies the criteria for a defense to the offense, the prosecutor must so instruct the grand jury. Failure to do so renders the grand jury proceeding defective and the indictment must be dismissed, even after a conviction at trial.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S RESTRICTIONS ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENSE “FALSE CONFESSION” EXPERT, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “PROMISE BY POLICE” JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge erroneously restricted the defense false-confession-expert’s testimony and erroneously denied defendant’s request for a “Promise by Police” jury instruction (defendant testified the police made promises to him during the 12-hour interrogation):​

… [T]he court limited the scope of the defendant’s expert’s testimony by precluding the mention of a study by the Innocence Project, which found that of the more than 300 people who had been, at the time, exonerated by DNA, approximately 25% of those people had confessed, and a study conducted at the University of Michigan Law School, where researchers found that of the 1,405 exonerations that took place between 1989 and 2012, 10% of the people had falsely confessed, and people with mental illness or intellectual disability were overrepresented in those who had done so. Here, the court improperly concluded that those studies were not relevant … .

…[T]he studies were relevant to illustrate the risk of false confessions, and specifically, a study related to mental disability is proper in this case where the defendant was found to have an IQ lower then 93% of individuals in his age group. … [T]he court limited the scope of the expert’s testimony as to existing research on false confessions … . The court further compounded this error by denying admission of a portion of the defendant’s expert’s curriculum vitae, ruling, without basis, that the titles of certain articles listed therein would be inappropriate for a jury to see, thereby depriving the jury of information relevant to the credibility and weight of the expert’s testimony … . Moreover, these errors allowed the People’s expert to testify that research in the area of false confessions is scant and that the study of false confessions and the evaluation of psychological vulnerabilities was a “primitive subdiscipline.” … [T]he court also scheduled the trial on a date that the defendant’s expert was not available. Although the use of video recorded testimony is not error, “[l]ive televised testimony is certainly not the equivalent of in-person testimony” … . As such, the jury was able to observe the in-court testimony of the People’s expert, but was only able to observe the defendant’s expert on a television screen, and even that testimony was edited to exclude the aforementioned studies. People v Grigoroff, 2025 NY Slip Op 07400, Second Dept 12-31-25

​Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how restrictions placed on an expert’s testimony can create the impression there is little or no support for the expert’s conclusions in the relevant literature. Here, because the defense expert was not allowed to discuss the studies upon which his “false confession” conclusions were based, the People’s expert was able to tell the jury “false confession” research is “scant” and is a “primitive subdiscipline.” In addition, the trial was scheduled when the People’s expert could attend, but the defense expert could not, forcing the defense expert to submit videotaped testimony.

 

, , , ,

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDED ON WHETHER THERE WAS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT; THE EXISTENCE OF AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS A FACT-INTENSIVE INQUIRY WHICH, WHEN IN DISPUTE, REQUIRES A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should have ordered a hearing to determine whether the respondent had an “intimate relationship” with the petitioner such that a family offense proceeding alleging identify theft could be brought by the petitioner against the respondent. Whether an “intimate relationship” exist is a fact-intensive inquiry and when it is in dispute a hearing should be held:

Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings, as defined by Family Ct Act § 812 (1), extends to enumerated offenses occurring between members of the same family or household, including those “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . While the statute does not define “intimate relationship,” it expressly excludes casual acquaintances and ordinary social or business associations … . In determining whether an intimate relationship exists, courts consider, among other things, “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … . Additionally, “the relationship should be direct [and] not one based upon a connection with a third party” … . Whether an intimate relationship exists is a fact-intensive inquiry to be resolved on a case-by-case basis … . When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction … . Matter of McCarra v Chiaramonte, 2025 NY Slip Op 07352, Third Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Family Court has jurisdiction over family offense proceedings involving unrelated parties if there exists an “intimate relationship” between the parties. Determining whether there is an “intimate relationship” is a fact-intensive inquiry usually requires a hearing.

 

, ,

HOSPITAL SECURITY PERSONNEL WENT TO PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT AND ESCORTED HER TO DEFENDANT HOSPITAL (THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT DESCRIBED); PLAINTIFF WON A “FALSE IMPRISONMENT” SUIT AND WAS AWARDED $3.5 MILLION; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S SUBJECTIVE BELIEF SHE COULD NOT LEAVE THE APARTMENT OR THE VEHICLE TRANSPORTING HER TO THE HOSPITAL WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, setting aside the $3.5 million verdict, determined the evidence did not support the “false imprisonment” theory of liability. Plaintiff was escorted from her apartment to defendant hospital by hospital security personnel (the underlying circumstances are not explained in the decision). Plaintiff alleged she was confined in her apartment and in the vehicle in which she was taken to the hospital:

“‘A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law will be granted where there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial'” … . “[T]he question of whether a verdict was utterly irrational, entitling a movant to a directed verdict, involves a pure question of law” … . “‘In considering such a motion, the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … .

“To prevail on a cause of action to recover damages for false arrest or false imprisonment, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, that the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not privileged” … . * * *

The decedent’s subjective belief that she was confined in her apartment and that the security officers would not leave if asked is insufficient, without more, to establish an intent to confine … . Moreover, a threat to call the police does not constitute “detaining force necessary to establish the tort of false imprisonment” … . In addition, the fact that the decedent testified that the security officers parked their vehicle so as to block the decedent’s driveway is insufficient to establish confinement, absent other evidence that the decedent was incapable of departing by foot … .

… The decedent’s testimony as to her own subjective belief that, once she was in the vehicle, she felt that she “no longer had any rights and that [she] was in custody and . . . imagined what would happen if [she] tried to get out of the car,” is insufficient, without more, to establish an intent to confine … . Dender v North Shore Manhasset Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 07378, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for setting aside a verdict awarding damages.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof required to support an allegation of “false imprisonment.”

 

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