You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT REBUTTED BY MOTHER’S EXPERT.

Reversing Family Court, the Second Department determined expert testimony on behalf of the mother rebutted the petitioner’s prima facie case of neglect. The court noted the nature of petitioner’s prima facie proof is akin to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in negligence. Proof of an injury to a child which would not occur if the child had been in the care of a responsible caregiver is enough to make out a prima facie case. Expert testimony demonstrating the injuries may have occurred when the child was not in the mother’s care and further demonstrating alternate causes of the injuries was sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of neglect/abuse:

Section 1046(a)(ii) of the Family Court Act permits a finding of abuse based upon evidence of an injury to a child which would ordinarily not occur absent acts or omissions of the responsible caretaker, and “authorizes a method of proof which is closely analogous to the negligence rule of res ipsa loquitur” … . “If the petitioner establishes a prima facie case of abuse, the burden of going forward shifts to respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability,’ although the burden of proof always remains with the petitioner” … .

The petitioner established a prima facie case of abuse … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, however, the mother presented sufficient evidence to rebut the petitioner’s case, through the testimony of her expert witness. The mother’s expert witness testified that the injuries … occurred during a period of time when the petitioner had not established that [the child] was in the exclusive care of the mother. Additionally, the expert opined that the injuries could have resulted from alternate mechanisms. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother abused [the child] … . Matter of Miguel G. (Navil G.). 2015 NY Slip Op 08834, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT NOT ESTABLISHED, PETITIONER’S CASE REBUTTED)/NEGLECT (PETITIONER’S PRIMA FACIE CASE REBUTTED BY EXPERT TESTIMONY)/EXPERT TESTIMONY (SUFFICIENT TO REBUT PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT)

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED AND CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendant transit authority did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a slip and fall hazard because it did not present evidence of when the area was last cleaned and inspected or what the area looked like prior to the slip and fall:

A defendant property owner who moves for 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 … . ” To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell'” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The defendant failed to set forth when the subject platform was last inspected or what it looked like prior to the accident, and it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . Roman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 08820,  2nd Dept 12-2-15

NEGLIGENCE (LACK OF NOTICE OF SLIP AND FALL HAZARD, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE)//SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE)/NOTICE OF SLIP AND FALL HAZARD (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF)

ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S LEAD VEHICLE STOPPED FOR NO APPARENT REASON RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE REAR-END COLLISION.

The Second Department determined that defendant’s (Balenescu’s) allegation that plaintiff (Galuten, who was in the lead vehicle) suddenly stopped for no apparent reason raised a question of fact about whether plaintiff’s negligence caused or contributed to the accident:

Mere evidence of a sudden stop, without more, is not enough to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the operator of the stopped vehicle was partly at fault, so as to defeat summary judgment … . However, while vehicle stops under prevailing traffic conditions are forseeable and must be anticipated by the following driver, where the sudden stop is unexplained by the existing circumstances and conditions, an issue of fact as to liability is raised … .

Here, Balenescu averred, inter alia, that when he was “25 yards from the Galuten vehicle, still traveling at 15 miles per hour, the light turned green, and the Galuten vehicle . . . accelerated safely through the intersection into the next block.” Then about 10 yards past the intersection of West 23rd Street and 12th Avenue, the Galuten vehicle suddenly stopped short “for no apparent reason,” as there was no traffic “for fifty yards in front of the Galuten vehicle,” and the Galuten vehicle showed no signs, nor made any signals, to signify that it was stopping. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Galuten’s alleged negligence caused or contributed to the accident … . Etingof v Metropolitan Laundry Mach. Sales, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08803, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, UNEXPLAINED STOP)/REAR-END COLLISION (UNEXPLAINED STOP)

Video Recording of Independent Medical Exam (IME) Should Be Disclosed Prior to Trial; Court’s Permission to Record IME Is Required; Request for Another IME by a Different Doctor Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, determined: (1) a video of an independent medical exam (IME) surrepticiously made by plaintiff’s attorney should have been turned over to the defense prior to trial; (2) the court’s permission for recording an IME is required; and (3) under the unique circumstances of this case, the request for an IME by a different doctor should have been granted. The opinion is very long and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. With respect to the additional IME and the IME video, the Second Department wrote:

Pursuant to CPLR 3121(a), if a plaintiff’s physical condition is in controversy, the defendant may require the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination … . There is no restriction in CPLR 3121 limiting the number of examinations to which a party may be subjected, and a subsequent examination is permissible provided the party seeking the examination demonstrates the necessity for it … . Furthermore, after a note of issue has been filed, as in this case, a defendant must demonstrate that unusual and unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue to justify an additional examination … .

In the present case, unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting a new IME abound. Foremost among them is Dr. Katz’s unavailability to the appellants as a witness at a retrial, due to his refusal to appear voluntarily, which, in turn, resulted from the Supreme Court’s repeated accusation that Dr. Katz “lied” or committed “perjury” at the first damages trial. These extraordinary circumstances were set in motion when the plaintiff’s attorney chose to surreptitiously videotape Dr. Katz’s second IME of the plaintiff, and chose to withhold that recording from defense counsel despite the requirements of CPLR 3101(i). * * *

… [T]he failure of plaintiff’s counsel to seek and obtain the Supreme Court’s permission to videotape the second IME was, by itself, a sufficient reason to prohibit the use of the recording at trial. Further compounding the improper conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in making the recording without procuring the court’s approval in advance was the failure to disclose the recording to defense counsel prior to trial, which was a clear violation of CPLR 3101. Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: “There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: (1) a party, or the officer, director, member, agent or employee of a party” (CPLR 3101[a] [emphasis added]). Subsection (i) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“In addition to any other matter which may be subject to disclosure, there shall be full disclosure of any films, photographs, video tapes or audio tapes, including transcripts or memoranda thereof, involving a person referred to in paragraph one of subdivision (a) of this section. There shall be disclosure of all portions of such material, including out-takes, rather than only those portions a party intends to use” (CPLR 3101[i]). Bermejo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08374, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Hospital Had a Duty to Safeguard Plaintiff from Actions by Third Parties

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether defendant hospital (“Winthrop defendants”) had a duty to safeguard plaintiff-patient from harm caused by the emergency medical technicians (EMT’s) who transported plaintiff to the hospital. Plaintiff was brought to the hospital by ambulance for dialysis. The EMT’s placed plaintiff on a scale and left. Plaintiff fell when he was on the scale:

A hospital has a duty to safeguard the welfare of its patients, even from harm inflicted by third persons, measured by the capacity of the patient to provide for his or her own safety” … . “This sliding scale of duty is limited, however; it does not render a hospital an insurer of patient safety or require it to keep each patient under constant surveillance. As with any liability in tort, the scope of a hospital’s duty is circumscribed by those risks which are reasonably foreseeable” … .

Here, the Winthrop defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not breach a duty owed to the decedent. The decedent was transported to the Winthrop defendants’ facility for dialysis treatment, and a witness for the Winthrop defendants testified at his deposition that the weighing of the decedent, on the Winthrop defendants’ premises, was a critical component of that treatment. It was reasonably foreseeable that a patient suffering from end-stage renal disease, who was transported to the Winthrop defendants’ facility by ambulance and in a stretcher, could fall while being weighed-in at the dialysis unit, if not properly supervised. Thus, the decedent’s injury was reasonably foreseeable to the Winthrop defendants.

In support of their motion, the Winthrop defendants submitted deposition testimony indicating that it was customary practice for EMTs of transportation companies to be responsible for weighing patients brought to the dialysis unit on a stretcher prior to transferring care of the patient to the Winthrop defendants’ dialysis nurses. However, they did not present any evidence that there was any written policy or agreement to that effect. Under these circumstances, the deposition testimony submitted by the Winthrop defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not owe a duty to the decedent. Patel v American Med. Response, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08395, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

Six-Year Statute of Limitations for Reformation of Deed Exceeded, No Evidence the Exception to the Statute Applied

The Second Department determined the action to reform a deed (correction of alleged scrivener’s error) was time-barred. The six-year statute was exceeded and there was no proof the exception to the six-year statute applied:

A cause of action seeking reformation of an instrument on the ground of mistake, including an alleged scrivener’s error, is governed by the six-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 213(6), which begins to run on the date the mistake was made … . However, “a well-recognized exception exists as to one who is in possession of real property under an instrument of title,’ whereby the statute of limitations never begins to run against his [or her] right to reform that instrument until he [or she] has notice of a claim adverse to his [or hers] under the instrument, or until his [or her] possession is otherwise disturbed'” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged scrivener’s error occurred on August 8, 2005, and that the plaintiff did not commence this action until February 2013, more than six years after the alleged mistake … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to the applicability of the exception to the statute of limitations based on his alleged “possession of real property under an instrument of title” … . The plaintiff failed to submit any evidence with respect to whether or when he was in possession of the subject property. Lopez v Lopez, 2015 NY Slip Op 08389, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Emergency Exception to Warrant Requirement Misapplied

The police officers chased defendant when defendant ran and an officer thought he saw a handle of a gun on defendant’s person. The officers entered defendant’s house and found drugs. The Second Department determined the drugs should have been suppressed because there was no emergency justifying the warrantless entry and search of the house:

Under the emergency exception, the police may make a warrantless entry into a protected area if (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property, (2) the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and (3) there was some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … . … There was no evidence of any circumstances which would have provided a reasonable basis for the patrol officers to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or property inside the house … .

Furthermore, even where exigent circumstances justify the warrantless entry into a protected area, the scope and duration of the warrantless search must be limited by and reasonably related to the exigencies of the situation … . Here, the subject drugs were not discovered by the ESU officers during their protective sweep. Rather, they were discovered by the patrol officers, who conducted an evidentiary search after the ESU officers had secured the house and removed the defendant, who was the only occupant. At the time of the patrol officers’ search, any purported exigency had abated, the police were in complete control of the house, and there was no danger that the defendant, who was in custody, would dispose of or destroy the weapon. Accordingly, the police were required to obtain a warrant prior to conducting the evidentiary search … . Moreover, contrary to the suppression court’s findings, it is of no avail that the contraband was found in plain view, since the patrol officers’ warrantless entry was illegal … . People v Scott, 2015 NY Slip Op 08445, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

Height Differential Open and Obvious

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the condition which caused plaintiff to fall was open and obvious (nonactionable). Plaintiff tripped where there was a height differential between a bed of decorative stones and the abutting walkway:

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, including photographs of the accident site, demonstrated, prima facie, that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the height differential between the cement walkway and the abutting bed of stones was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Mucciariello v A & D Hylan Blvd. Assoc., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08391, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Portable Breath Test Device (PBT) Results Should Not Have Been Admitted, Driving While Intoxicated Conviction Reversed

The Second Department reversed defendant’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction because the results of the portable breath test device (PBT) were allowed in evidence in the People’s direct case:

Generally, the result of a PBT, such as an Alco-sensor, “is not admissible to establish intoxication, as its reliability for this purpose is not generally accepted in the scientific community” … . Contrary to the trial court’s determination, isolated remarks during defense counsel’s opening statement did not open the door for the People to introduce incriminating testimony about the PBT result as part of their case-in-chief, particularly in the absence of appropriate limiting instructions … . We note that the opening remarks at issue, regarding the officer discarding the PBT “cap,” were at least partly offered in support of the defense theory that the defendant was not aware that he was the subject of a lawful arrest on the night in question, which theory was offered to undermine the charges of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest. Further, we find that the People adequately responded to this remark by eliciting the officer’s testimony that he disposed of the plastic cap because it was unsanitary, and this was standard procedure. Nonetheless, the People elicited testimony that, according to the PBT, the defendant’s BAC was .128%, significantly higher than the legal limit of .08%, before defense counsel had an opportunity to raise this issue during cross-examination … . Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant opened the door for the People to adduce evidence of an insufficiently reliable PBT result in order to prove the defendant’s intoxication … .

Thereafter, the trial court did not provide the jury with any limiting instructions regarding the PBT result …, but instead directed the jury to consider the PBT result as direct proof of the defendant’s intoxication. The court told the jury that the PBT was a “generally accepted instrument in determining blood alcohol content,” and that no scientific expert was necessary. This was error … . Under the circumstances, including the lack of evidence of admissible field sobriety tests, we find that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Krut, 2015 NY Slip Op 08439, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

Single Step Was Open and Obvious

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case because the alleged defective condition, a single step riser, was open and obvious and complied with building code requirements:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence which demonstrated that the subject step complied with the relevant Building Code requirements and that it was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to defeat the defendants’ motion with “proof demonstrating the existence of an issue of fact as to whether other circumstances prevailed which could lead the trier of fact to conclude that a dangerous condition existed which was a substantial cause of the [accident] resulting in the plaintiff[‘s] . . . injury” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Fishelson v Kramer Props., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08380, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

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