You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY...
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, BY A FORKLIFT WHICH WAS BACKING UP; THE FACT THAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS WERE OPTIONAL WAS NOT A DESIGN DEFECT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ALLEGING FAILURE TO INSPECT THE FORKLIFT, CRITERIA EXLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this forklift-accident case, determined the fact that the rear-view mirrors for the forklift were optional was not a design defect, and the landlord, the Port Authority, was immune from the negligence action alleging a failure to properly inspect the forklift:

… Unicarriers [defendant forklift manufacturer] established … the plaintiff’s employer was thoroughly knowledgeable about forklifts and knew that mirrors were available, since it maintained more than 100 forklifts in operation in New York, and the brochure for the forklift listed rearview mirrors as an optional feature. Unicarriers also established that the forklift was not unreasonably dangerous without backup mirrors and that the plaintiff’s employer was in the best position to balance the benefits and the risks of not having mirrors on the forklift … . * * *

… [T]he Port Authority established, prima facie, that its alleged failure to properly inspect the forklift and its issuance of a Port Authority license plate were governmental functions. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the forklift inspections performed by the Port Authority and the issuance of the license plate were an exercise of the Port Authority’s police power for the protection and safety of the public rather than any authority conferred by a landlord-tenant relationship … . The actions of the Port Authority did not create a special duty toward the plaintiff because the inspections were designed to protect public safety rather than the safety of particular individuals … . Strassburger v Unicarriers Ams. Corps., 2024 NY Slip Op 01742, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: Here in this forklift accident case, the fact that rear-view mirrors were optional was not a designe defect. The relevant criteria are explained.

Practice Point: Here the Port Authority of NY & NJ, the landlord for JFK Airport, was exercising a governmental function when inspecting the forklift and therefore was immune from suit, criteria explained.

 

You might also like
Labor Law 241(6) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Power Washing Was Integral to the Painting Process and Was Not “Routine Maintenance”
PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT BEFORE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Most of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action Were Allegations Concerning the Conduct of a State Employee in His Official Capacity—Therefore, Those Causes of Action Were Actually Against the State and Could Only Be Heard in the Court of Claims/Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained
Causes of Action Not in Notice of Claim Dismissed.
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO MANAGEMENT COULD BE INTERPRETED TO CLAIM THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A FALSE TAX RETURN USING DEFENDANT’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND THAT PLAINTIFF STOLE FUNDS FROM THE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DECISION INCLUDES A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION OF THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION (SECOND DEPT).
SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE CANNOT AVOID ARBITRATION SIMPLY BECAUSE PARTIES ENTWINED IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SIGNATORIES (SECOND DEPT).
ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OWNER OF THE OTHER TWO, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW; THEREFORE THE $10,000,000 PUNITIVE-DAMAGES JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

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

A PRETRIAL RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS AN UNAPPEALABLE ADVISORY... THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY...