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
BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW.
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
INABILITY TO IMPOSE THE PROMISED SENTENCE REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND TO CHANGE VENUE; THE 15-DAY TIME-LIMIT IS STRICTLY ENFORCED AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ALTER EGO) ALLEGATIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.
A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO EXPUNGE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER’S DNA RECORDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” AND DID NOT ACT IN “RECKLESS DISREGARD” OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP EXHIBITED THE CARE AND SELF-SACRIFICE OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, HOUSING COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS A FAMILY MEMBER ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS IN THE RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT (FIRST 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

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