You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SAW WHAT HE SHOULD...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SAW WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE SEEN BEFORE THE EMPLOYEE’S GARBAGE CART COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S SCOOTER AS PLAINTIFF BACKED OUT OF AN ELEVATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact raised by the defendant housing authority’s evidence precluded summary judgment. Plaintiff was injured when a custodian pushing a cart collided with plaintiff’s scooter as plaintiff backed out of an elevator. The custodian’s claim that he could see clearly in front of him raised a credibility issue:

​

Here the evidence the Housing Authority submitted in support of the motion was insufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence did not eliminate any material issue of fact as to whether its employee was negligent in handling the garbage cart at the time of the incident. The employee testified at his deposition that he was told to watch for people in the hallways and to never fill the cart too high so as to block his vision at the front of the cart. He never loaded the cart higher than chest height, at the time of the accident there was nothing obstructing his view, and he always looked in front of him when pushing the cart to make sure no one was in front of him. At the time of the incident he could see clearly in front of him, he was not walking fast, and he was cautiously pushing the cart with his usual force. The employee further testified at his deposition that he first saw the plaintiff only after he felt the impact of his cart striking the plaintiff, and he stopped to see what had occurred. It is undisputed that the plaintiff had been on his scooter backing out of the elevator before the impact, which raises a question as to the credibility of the employee’s testimony that he could see clearly in front of him as he was pushing the cart, when he did not see or hear the elevator open or the plaintiff backing out of the elevator. Further, there is a question of fact as to whether the employee was negligent in failing to “see what should be seen” … . Since the Housing Authority failed to eliminate all questions of fact as to the happening of the accident, the Supreme Court should have denied its motion without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Richardson v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 09187, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SAW WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE SEEN BEFORE COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S SCOOTER AS PLAINTIFF BACKED OUT OF AN ELEVATOR (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT.
IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DID NOT SIGN THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT AND DECLINED TO HAVE IT READ TO HER; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SON, WHO HAD POWER OF ATTORNEY, REFUSED TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT; THE FACILITY CAN NOT ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ONLY THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAS THAT POWER.
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request that the Jury Be Charged with an Affirmative Defense to Robbery First (Weapon Was Not Capable of Being Discharged) Constituted Ineffective Assistance
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
THE APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT WHO WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PLANNING BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, A FINDING WITH WHICH PETITIONERS DISAGREED, THE BOARD ALSO HELD THE PETITIONERS COULD APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION WHICH WAS NOT DONE, THE ACTION IS THEREFORE PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF TRIPPING OVER BENCHES NEAR THE FIELD WHERE HE... ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE...