You are here: / STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT...

Search Results

/ ,

STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a dissenting opinion, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined the appropriate standard of proof for the imposition of punitive damages in an employment discrimination (here gender and pregnancy discrimination) suit pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL):

The New York City Human Rights Law makes clear that punitive damages are available for violations of the statute, but does not specify a standard for when such damages should be awarded. The Second Circuit has, by certified question, asked us to determine the applicable standard. We conclude that, consistent with the New York City Council’s directive to construe the New York City Human Rights Law liberally, the common law standard as articulated in Home Insurance Co. v American Home Prods. Corp. (75 NY2d 196, 203-204 [1990]) applies. Accordingly, a plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages where the wrongdoer’s actions amount to willful or wanton negligence, or recklessness, or where there is “a conscious disregard of the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard” … . Chauca v Abraham, 2017 NY Slip Op 08158, CtApp 11-20-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYC) (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/GENDER DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))

/ , ,

NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two dissenting opinions, determined that defendant was not entitled to coram nobis relief based upon ineffective assistance for failure to perfect an appeal:

 

In People v Syville (15 NY3d 391 [2010]), we held that, in rare circumstances, a defendant may seek coram nobis relief despite failing to move for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal within the one-year grace period provided by CPL 460.30. Specifically, we concluded that coram nobis may be available for a defendant who demonstrated that he or she timely requested that trial counsel file a notice of appeal, the attorney failed to comply, and the omission could not reasonably have been discovered within the one-year time limit … . Defendant now asks us to expand Syville to situations in which retained trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal but allegedly failed to advise the defendant of his or her right to poor person relief, or to take any action when served with a motion to dismiss the appeal years after the notice of appeal was filed. Because defendant has not met his burden of proving that counsel was ineffective, we decline to expand Syville under the circumstances presented here. * * *

​

Given this … Court’s holdings … that a defendant is not constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel in seeking poor person relief as long as he or she is given written notice that is similar to the one defendant received here — defendant has a heavy burden to demonstrate entitlement to a writ of error coram nobis premised on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to assist in procuring poor person relief. … He failed to meet that burden here, both in terms of his specific claim that counsel did not advise him of his right to seek poor person relief in connection with his appeal and the more general claim, advanced by both Judge Rivera and Judge Wilson in dissent, that counsel did not consult with him regarding an appeal.

​

With respect to the other prong of defendant’s coram nobis motion (based on failure to respond to the dismissal motion four years after the notice of appeal was filed) defendant and Judge Rivera, in her dissent, essentially seek a rule that trial counsel has a constitutional responsibility in connection with an appeal for an indefinite period of time extending for years after the notice of appeal is filed. Neither defendant nor that dissent cite any legal support for the imposition of such a rule. Moreover, the cases … do not support imposing either … an open-ended obligation on behalf of trial counsel or a rule that counsel is ineffective for failing to assist a defendant in obtaining poor person relief. People v Arjune, 2017 NY Slip Op 08159, CtApp 11-20-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/CORAM NOBIS  (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))

/ ,

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement cause of action and the punitive damages demand should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff contracted with defendants to transport his brother by air ambulance from Puerto Rico to New York. Plaintiff alleged no respiratory therapist was on the plane and the plane was not equipped with advanced life support equipment:

​

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement. Contrary to the court’s determination, the cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, as it alleged that the defendants made misrepresentations of present fact that were collateral to the contract and served as an inducement to enter into the contract … .Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish, prima facie, that their alleged misrepresentations of fact were not false and, therefore, not misrepresentations at all … .

​

The Supreme Court also erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover punitive damages. The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they did not engage in conduct having a high degree of moral culpability which manifested a conscious disregard for the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard … . Greenberg v Meyreles, 2017 NY Slip Op 08351, Second Dept 11-20-17

 

FRAUD (CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED AIR AMBULANCE WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that he New York City charter provisions governing service of a Notice of Violation (NOV) of the building code require only one unsuccessful attempt at personal service before the affix and mail provisions kick in. The CPLR nail and mail provisions (which require due diligence in the attempts at personal service) do not apply:

​

The question presented is whether, prior to use of the affix and mail procedure, the City Charter requires more than a single attempt to personally serve the NOV at the premises. * * *

​

… [T]he plain language of the relevant statute speaks in the singular — “[s]uch notice may only be affixed . . . where a reasonable attempt has been made” at personal delivery — indicating that only one attempt is required … . * * *

​

Moreover, the alternate service procedure authorized by the statute — a single attempt to personally deliver the NOV, coupled with affixing the NOV to the property and mailing copies to the owner at the premises and other addresses on file with related City agencies — is reasonably calculated to inform owners of violations relating to their properties. Matter of Mestecky v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08162, CtApp 11-20-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (NYC, BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NYC, BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NYC BUILDING CODE, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NAIL AND MAIL (NYC BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV)  (NYC BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))

/ , ,

PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the decision vacating an order concerning a counterclaim in a prior appeal was the law of the case, despite the “otherwise affirmed” phrase in the decision, and Supreme Court should not have adhered to a prior ruling on the counterclaim in Supreme Court. The Fourth Department further held that Supreme Court properly found a report prepared by an accountant was prepared in anticipation of litigation and was not discoverable as a “mixed file:”

​

“An appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on . . . Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court . . . [T]he “law of the case” operates to foreclose re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law’ “… . Nevertheless, “where a court has vacated an earlier order, the doctrine of . . . law of the case no longer applies . . . Indeed, a vacated judgment has no preclusive force either as a matter of collateral or direct estoppel or as a matter of the law of the case’ “… . While this Court may have “otherwise affirmed” the order insofar as it concerned the issues unrelated to the counterclaim, we dismissed the appeal from that part of the order concerning the counterclaim and vacated the judgment. That necessarily means that any determinations related to the counterclaim were not encompassed by the “otherwise affirmed” language related to the order … . Micro-Link, LLC v Town of Amherst, 2017 NY Slip Op 08120, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (MATERIAL PREPARED FOR LITIGATION, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/ACCOUNTANTS (PRIVILEGE, REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

/

WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that CPLR 3404, which deems an action abandoned if not restored within a year of being marked off or struck from the calendar, does not apply to cases where a note of issue was filed but subsequently was vacated. The 1st and 2nd Department adhere to this view, the 3rd Department does not:

In accordance with the tenor and spirit of our existing case law, we now explicitly adopt the 1st and 2nd Departments’ rule, and reject the 3rd Department’s. It is axiomatic that CPLR 3404 has no applicability in the absence of an extant and valid note of issue … , and we agree with the Second Department that “[t]he vacatur of a note of issue . . . returns the case to pre-note of issue status [and] does not constitute a marking off’ or striking the case from the court’s calendar within the meaning of CPLR 3404” … . To state the obvious, a note of issue does not survive its own vacatur, and it makes no sense to apply CPLR 3404 when the statute’s operative premise—i.e., the continuing vitality of the note of issue—no longer exists. Bradley v Konakanchi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08125, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 3403 (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTE OF ISSUE  (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/ABANDONMENT (CPLR 3404, WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this fatal car accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ decedent was killed when the car in which he was a passenger entered a park at night and crashed after failing to negotiate a curve in the road. The driver, Benedict, was intoxicated and there was evidence the car was driven at high speed. Although a sign at the park indicated it was closed at dusk, the gate was open, there were no signs indicating an upcoming  curve in the road, and there were no speed limit signs. The driver had never been on the road before:

​

A municipality has a duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition “in order to guard against contemplated and foreseeable risks to motorists,” including risks related to a driver’s negligence or misconduct… . In other words, a municipality is not relieved of liability for failure to keep its roadways in a reasonably safe condition “whenever [an accident] involves driver error” … . Defendant’s duty to maintain the road was therefore not negated by Benedict’s intoxication or the fact that the park was closed when the accident occurred … , and we conclude that defendant did not establish as a matter of law that Benedict’s presence under those circumstances was unforeseeable … . Inasmuch as defendant presented no evidence that the road was reasonably safe at night in the absence of the safety measures proposed by plaintiffs, we conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it was not negligent … .

We further agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in determining as a matter of law that Benedict’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Although defendant presented evidence that Benedict was intoxicated and driving “at high speed,” we conclude that its submissions did not establish as a matter of law that Benedict’s manner of driving “would have been the same” if the safety measures proposed by plaintiffs had been in place … . Stiggins v Town of N. Dansville, 2017 NY Slip Op 08108, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS DRIVING AT HIGH SPEED, DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO CLOSE THE PARK GATE AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPEED LIMIT AND ROAD-CURVE SIGNS DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. There was evidence plaintiff’s son, who was riding in a pickup truck with defendant’s son, may have voluntarily participated in a drag race which led to the accident and the death of plaintiff’s son:

​

Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the accident occurred during an “illegal street race” in which plaintiff’s son participated, that his death was the direct result of his own serious violation of the law, and that recovery on his behalf was therefore precluded as a matter of public policy under the rule of Barker v Kallash (63 NY2d 19 [1984]) and Manning v Brown (91 NY2d 116 [1997]). In the alternative, defendants sought summary judgment on the issue whether plaintiff’s son had been comparatively negligent. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendants’ cross motion, and defendants appeal.

We agree with defendants that the Barker/Manning rule may apply to a high-speed street race between motor vehicles, i.e., “a drag race as that term is commonly understood” … , even if the participants did not plan a particular race course and the incident thus did not qualify as a “speed contest” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1182 (a) (1)… . The record here, however, supports conflicting inferences with respect to whether defendants’ son was engaged in a race with other pickup truck drivers … and, if so, whether plaintiff’s son was a “willing participant” in the race … . Thus, the applicability of the Barker/Manning rule is an issue of fact … . In addition, there are issues of fact with respect to the alleged comparative negligence of plaintiff’s son in choosing to ride with defendants’ son, in view of evidence that defendants’ son was under the influence of alcohol and had said that he intended to “chase . . . down” the other trucks … . We therefore conclude that the court properly denied defendants’ cross motion but erred in granting that part of plaintiff’s motion with respect to the culpable conduct defense, and we modify the order accordingly. Kovach v McCollum, 2017 NY Slip Op 08121, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/DRAG RACE (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/BARKER-MANNING RULE (NEGLIGENCE, DRAG RACE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (DRAG RACE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly found that the sheriff abused his discretion when he refused to allow petitioner, a deputy sheriff, to withdraw his resignation. The deputy resigned after the sheriff told him he would be fired if he didn’t resign:

​

It is well settled that ” [a] resignation under coercion or duress is not a voluntary act and may be nullified’ ” … . Although a threat to terminate an employee does not constitute duress if the person making the threat has the legal right to terminate the employee … , such a threat does constitute duress if it is wrongful and precludes the exercise of free will … . It follows that a resignation obtained under the threat of wrongful termination is involuntary and may be withdrawn upon request, and that it is an abuse of discretion for an officer to deny such a request … .

Here, petitioner tendered his resignation under the threat of wrongful termination, and we therefore conclude that the Sheriff abused his discretion in refusing to allow petitioner to withdraw the resignation. Civil Service Law § 75 provides that a public employer may not terminate or otherwise discipline certain public employees “except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges” … . A covered employee “against whom removal or other disciplinary action is proposed shall have written notice thereof and of the reasons therefor, shall be furnished a copy of the charges preferred against him and shall be allowed at least eight days for answering the same in writing” … . Thereafter, a hearing must be held … . There is no dispute that petitioner was covered by the statute and that he was not provided with the requisite predisciplinary hearing. Thus, the Sheriff had no legal right to terminate him.  Matter of Ortlieb v Lewis County Sheriff’s Dept., 2017 NY Slip Op 08115, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW,  DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL SERVICE LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action (as well as a Labor law 241 (6) cause of action). Plaintiff was struck when a bundle of rebar that was being hoisted fell. Plaintiff’s actions in placing chokers on the rebar to allow the rebar to be hoisted were not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Others were involved in preparing the rebar for hoisting:

​

To recover under section 240 (1) for injuries sustained in a falling object case, a plaintiff must establish “both (1) that the object was being hoisted or secured, or that it required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, and (2) that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device to guard against a risk involving the application of the force of gravity over a physically significant elevation differential” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiff established those factors and therefore met his burden on his motion. We note, in particular, that the deposition testimony and two witness affidavits tendered by plaintiff established “that any safety devices in fact used[, i.e., the chokers] failed in [their] core objective of preventing the [rebar] from falling,’ ” and that such failure was a proximate cause of the accident… . In opposition, defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact inasmuch as the opinions of their expert were conclusory … .

Contrary to defendants’ further contention, plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injuries. “[W]here a plaintiff’s own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability” … . To establish their “sole proximate cause” theory, defendants were required to present “some evidence that the device furnished was adequate and properly placed and that the conduct of the plaintiff [was] the sole proximate cause of his . . . injuries” … . Here, the record establishes that plaintiff was not alone in rigging the rebar bundle and transporting it to a different area of the construction site, and thus plaintiff’s conduct could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries. We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s action in participating in the rigging process raises, at most, an issue concerning his comparative negligence, which is not an available defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Flowers v Harborcenter Dev., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08117, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH 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