You are here: / / WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SALT-SPREADING TRUCK OCCURRED...
, , ,

WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A SALT-SPREADING TRUCK OCCURRED ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PARKING LOT AFFECTED THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PROOF ON THAT ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; DEFENDANTS’ ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY; THE $12 MILLION VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a new trial was necessary on both liability and damages in this traffic accident case. Supreme Court had found the $12,000,000 verdict excessive and had ordered a new damages trial. The accident occurred in a parking lot at LaGuardia Airport during a snowfall and involved a salt-spreading truck. Proof whether the parking was public or private should have been allowed because the reckless disregard standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law) would apply if the parking lot was public. The First Department further found that the defendants’ accident reconstructionist should have been allowed to testify:

Plaintiff, an employee at a Dunkin Donuts franchise in LaGuardia Airport, was involved in an accident with a salt spreading truck operating in parking lot 10 of the airport during a snowfall. The trial court erred in truncating proof on the issue of whether lot 10 was public or private. This error then directly impacted whether the jury should have been charged with the recklessness standard as set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103, or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163 … . The error in the charge warrants a new trial … .

The court also erred in precluding defendants’ accident reconstructionist from testifying … . The court’s in limine inquiry of the expert concerning scientific studies was not relevant, as the subject of the testimony, accident reconstruction and perception reaction time are not novel scientific theories, such as to require a Frye hearing … . The proposed expert testimony was based on evidence in the record concerning the accident, and was not entirely speculative … . Similarly, defendants’ notice of expert exchange was not insufficient such as to warrant his in toto preclusion. The remedy for any alleged failures in specificity could have been handled by limiting his testimony to the subject matters listed in the exchange (CPLR 3101[d]). Cabrera v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 03993, First Dept 7-16-20

 

You might also like
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSES; THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID; EVEN IF THE WAIVER WERE VALID THE IMPROPER PROBATION CONDITION COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
COURT’S LIMITED POWER OF REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, VACATION OF AWARD REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TEACHER FELL WHEN SHE LEANED ON A DEFECTIVE DESK; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROVE THAT THE DESK WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DESK (FIRST DEPT).
ONCE THE CITY TAX LIENS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED PAYMENT TO THE CITY, INSTEAD OF THE LIENHOLDER, IS NOT APPLIED TO THE DEBT (FIRST DEPT).
Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Applied
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A FALL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER, IT DID NOT MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE BEFORE OF AFTER THE LADDER WOBBLED (FIRST DEPT).
PARTY ADMISSIONS WERE NOT HEARSAY AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 ACTION; THE “PARTY-ADMISSIONS” ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND DEEMED DISPOSITIVE ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63.

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

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MOVE TO DISQUALIFY LAW FIRMS WHICH NEVER REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND...