You are here: / DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice. The motions were dismissed on procedural grounds because they were filed and served a few days after the 60-day deadline imposed by the local court rules. The courts had been closed when the papers were supposed to be filed due to a storm. The 2nd Department went on to determine the merits. Plaintiff had experienced headaches over a period of years and had sought treatment for them. Eventually a benign brain tumor was discovered. In removing the tumor plaintiff was rendered legally blind. The malpractice action alleged a negligent failure to diagnose the tumor, and lack of informed consent. The court held that the continuing treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations even though the treatment was for headaches, not the tumor, because the presence of the tumor had not been diagnosed. The court went on to find that the informed consent cause of action was not viable because the alleged malpractice was a failure to diagnose, not the negligent performance of a surgical procedure:

… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to continuous treatment. As is well established, “the continuous treatment doctrine tolls the Statute of Limitations for a medical malpractice action when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint” … . In addition, “[w]here the malpractice claim is based on an alleged failure to properly diagnose a condition, the continuous treatment doctrine may apply as long as the symptoms being treated indicate the presence of that condition” … . * * *

… [T]he informed consent claim lacks merit. As we have held, “[a] failure to diagnose cannot be the basis of a cause of action for lack of informed consent unless associated with a diagnostic procedure that involve[s] invasion or disruption of the integrity of the body'” … . Lewis v Rutkovsky, 2017 NY Slip Op 06342, First Dept 8-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined a release plaintiff’s decedent (South) agreed to in 1997 did not preclude the instant suit. South alleged he had been exposed to asbestos made by Texaco on board ships during his long career in the Merchant Marine. South died of mesothelioma. The 1997 release mentioned mesothelioma as a possible result of asbestos exposure but the First Department determined it was not clear South knew he was suffering from mesothemiola at the time he signed the release (in return for $1750.00). The case was analyzed under federal admiralty law law (Jones Act):

… [W]e find that the release does not pass muster. To tease out the true intent South had when he signed the release, it is necessary to consider the context in which he did so. The 1997 complaint, while making generalized allegations that South had been exposed to asbestos, is exceedingly vague as to whether he had actually contracted an asbestos-related disease. To be sure, it mentions a “devastating pulmonary disease Plaintiff now suffers” and an exhaustive grab-bag of asbestos-related diseases, from asbestosis to mesothelioma to brain cancer. However, it is impossible to conclude from the complaint that South had actually received a diagnosis. Indeed, the “meager” consideration he received for resolving the claim suggests that he had not been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, much less one even approaching the severity of the mesothelioma that the complaint specifically alleges he had. The complaint leaves open that possibility, to the extent it seeks relief for fear of an asbestos-related disease and not for the disease itself. Accordingly, the risk of contracting an actual asbestos-related disease remained hypothetical to South, and we decline to read the release as if South understood the implications of such a disease but chose nonetheless to release Texaco from claims arising from it.

Further, if South had not received a definitive diagnosis at the time the 1997 complaint was filed, then the release, to the extent it warns him of the possibility of “a new and different diagnosis from the diagnosis as of the date of this Release,” does not reflect the actual circumstances known to him, since the words “new” and “different” suggest that South had already been diagnosed with a disease when he executed the release. Rather, the lack of an actual diagnosis reveals the language in the release as mere boilerplate, and not the result of an agreement the parameters of which had been specifically negotiated and understood by South. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 06343  First Dept 8-29-17

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/MESOPTHEMIOLA (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-employees’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Defendants were subject to deferred compensation agreements (DCA’s) which called for the “for cause” forfeiture of the deferred compensation. Here it was alleged the defendants violated a non-solicitation, non-competition clause and therefore forfeited the deferred compensation. The defendants argued a subsequent document, an “election form” which extended the date on which the deferred compensation was due and payable, and which did not include a “for cause” forfeiture provision, should control. The courts disagreed:

… [T]he Election Forms, by their express language, provide that any deferral of payment of deferred compensation is to be made “in accordance with the terms of the Deferred Compensation Agreement . . . .” The DCAs, as noted, clearly provide in paragraph 4 that deferred compensation is forfeited if the employee is terminated for cause, including violation of non-solicitation or noncompetition covenants. There is no mention in the Election Forms of any intent to override this provision.

Additionally, paragraph 5 of the DCAs specifically provides that their terms “may not be altered, modified, or amended except by written instrument signed by the parties hereto.” At a minimum, it is commercially reasonable to view the Election Forms, on their face, to be informal human resources administrative forms. In any case, they are not “written instrument[s] signed by the parties [to the DCAs],” as they lack any signature of plaintiffs, as required by paragraph 5 in order to amend the DCAs. Perella Weinberg Partners LLC v Kramer,2017 NY Slip Op 06341, First Dept 8-29-17

CONTRACT LAW (FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (CONTRACT LAW, FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))/DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT (FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined further jurisdictional discovery was required before certain causes of action could be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. If the relationship with signatories of a contract with a forum selection clause is close enough, non-signatories will be covered by the clause. Discovery was necessary to determine how close the relationship was. The opinion is too detailed and complex to fully summarize here. The crux of the action is the alleged failure of the corporations to pay interest due on notes held by shareholders:

“Under New York law, a signatory to a contract may invoke a forum selection clause against a non-signatory if the non-signatory is closely related’ to one of the signatories such that enforcement of the forum selection clause is foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between the signatory and the party sought to be bound'” … . If the nonsignatory party has an ownership interest or a direct or indirect controlling interest in the signing party … , or, the entities or individuals consulted with each other regarding decisions and were intimately involved in the decision-making process… , then, a finding of personal jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause may be proper, as it achieves the “rationale behind binding closely related entities to the forum selection clause [which] is to promote stable and dependable trade relations.'” … .

Here, plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants, by virtue of their senior management positions, power and decision-making authority, and B & B, as the parent company of BTEL and as a principal shareholder of 39.6% of BTEL’s stock, had actual knowledge at the time of the offering that BTEL was insolvent and would be incapable of meeting its obligations under the notes; that they authorized, participated in, and promoted the offering; and that they caused the offering memoranda to be distributed into the marketplace. This is enough, at this stage, to permit jurisdictional discovery as to the nature of B & B’s and the individual defendants’ actual knowledge and role in the offering of the notes, and their responsibilities connected thereto, because this information, which may result in a determination that the nonsignatories are indeed “closely related” to the signing parties, is a fact that cannot be presently known to plaintiffs, but rather, is within the exclusive control of defendants …. . Universal Inv. Advisory SA v Bakrie Telecom PTE, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 06344, First Dept 8-29-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION,  FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (CONTRACT LAW, (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE,  FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

/

PETITIONERS HAD CAPACITY AND STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION RESPONDENTS VIOLATED THE ELECTION LAW AND COMPELLING REMEDIAL ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioners did not have the authority under the Election Law to force a respondent to refund a $200,000 contribution to an election committee, but did have capacity and standing to bring an action seeking a declaration respondents violated the Election Law and compelling a respondent to amend its registration documents:

Contrary to Supreme Court’s conclusion, petitioners do not wholly lack the authority to commence this proceeding/action. A party lacks the authority to sue where he or she is without both capacity and standing to sue … . “Capacity to sue is a threshold matter allied with, but conceptually distinct from, the question of standing” …  Capacity “concerns a litigant’s power to appear and bring its grievance before the court” …  and may, in some circumstances, be granted by statute … . In contrast, “[s]tanding involves a determination of whether the party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to cast . . . the dispute in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution” … . The concept of standing “is, at its foundation, aimed at advancing the judiciary’s self-imposed policy of restraint, which precludes the issuance of advisory opinions” … .

… [P]etitioners — five qualified voters who reside within … the 9th Assembly District — have been statutorily afforded a private right of action to seek a declaration that [responent] violated the Election Law and to compel [responents] to comply with the Election Law . Thus, petitioners have both capacity and standing to seek such relief. * * *

… Election Law § 14-126 (2) [does not] completely extinguish[] the private right of action granted in Election Law § 16-114 (3) so as to deprive petitioners of the authority to seek an order declaring that [respondent] violated Election Law § 14-107-a and compelling [respondent] to amend its registration documents. Matter of Lauder v Pellegrino, 2017 NY Slip Op 06337, Third Dept 8-24-17

 

ELECTION LAW (PETITIONERS HAD CAPACITY AND STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION RESPONDENTS’ VIOLATED THE ELECTION LAW AND COMPELLING REMEDIAL ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city had acquired title by adverse possession to a parcel purchased by plaintiff’s predecessors in 1948. The fact that plaintiff had continuously paid taxes on the property did not negate the proof of adverse possession:

In 1948, the plaintiff’s predecessors in interest purchased real property in Brooklyn. For at least 30 years, the subject property, which is in the middle of other lots owned by the defendant, City of New York, has been used by the New York City Department of Sanitation (hereinafter the DSNY) as a truck parking lot. During this time, the DSNY has paved the property, fenced it in, and installed lighting. * * *

Under the law before the 2008 amendments, in order to establish a claim to property by adverse possession, a claimant must prove, inter alia, that possession of the property was: (1) hostile and under a claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the required period … .

The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the “unequivocal acts of the usurper”… . A rebuttable presumption of hostility arises from possession accompanied by the usual acts of ownership, and this presumption continues until the possession is shown to be subservient to the title of another … . “Hostility can be inferred simply from the existence of the remaining four elements, thus shifting the burden to the record owner to produce evidence rebutting the presumption of adversity” … .

… We conclude that the mere payment of taxes on the subject property is insufficient to rebut the presumption. Even assuming that knowledge of the true ownership of the property can be imputed to another municipal department in the City, such knowledge is not sufficient to defeat a claim of adverse possession … . Estate of Vertley Clanton v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06254, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (ADVERSE POSSESSION, CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE POSSESSION (CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ADVERSE POSSESSION, CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that residents of a condominium across the street from the proposed construction of beach-front comfort stations did not have standing to contest the construction under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court further found that the petitioners’ air, light and access easements could not be asserted against the state, which owns the public road where the construction will be located:

“To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show (1) an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … . The alleged harm cannot be “too speculative and conjectural to demonstrate an actual and specific injury-in-fact” … . Close proximity alone is insufficient to confer standing where there are no zoning issues involved, and general environmental concerns will not suffice … . Moreover, “[t]o qualify for standing to raise a SEQRA challenge, a party must demonstrate that it will suffer an injury that is environmental and not solely economic in nature” … . Here, the petitioners’ alleged environmentally related injuries are too speculative and conjectural to demonstrate an actual and specific injury-in-fact … .

“When lands adjoin private property an easement of light, air and access over such property does not exist, under ordinary circumstances, merely because of the proximity of the lands to the private property” … .. However, an owner of land abutting a highway or street possesses, as incident to his or her ownership, easements of light, air, and access, irrespective of whether the owner owns the fee of the highway or the street itself … . Nevertheless, “[w]hen the fee of the highway has been transferred to the State, the State may use the highway for any public purpose not inconsistent with or prejudicial to its use for highway purposes . . . [and] [t]he mere disturbance of the rights of light, air and access of abutting owners on such a highway by the imposition of a new use, consistent with its use as an open public street, must be tolerated by them and no right of action arises therefrom, although such use interferes with the enjoyment of the premises”… . For example, the maintenance of trees on a street for the purposes of ornament and shade has been determined to be a proper street use … .

Here, the proposed construction will not completely block the petitioners’ ocean view nor prevent the petitioners from using the public street. Rather, the length of the dead-end street will be shortened and several public parking spaces will be removed. The turnaround will still be intact, although moved 23 feet to the north, and access to the petitioners’ driveway and building’s entrance will not be impeded … . In addition, the disputed comfort station will be open to, and for the purpose of, serving the public … . Matter of Shapiro v Torres, 2017 NY Slip Op 06281, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

REAL PROPERTY (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/EASEMENTS (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/AIR LIGHT AND ACCESS  (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (STANDING, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (STANDING, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS UNDER (SECOND DEPT))/HIGHWAYS (AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY (SECOND DEPT).

/ ,

COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Bauer defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this products liability action should have granted. The Bauer defendants were successors in interest to the company (Babcock) which manufactured the allegedly defective ladder. However. the Bauer defendants demonstrated they did not continue the manufacturer’s business:

… [A]s a general rule, a corporation which acquires the assets of another corporation is not liable for the predecessor’s tortious conduct, including a defective and dangerous product manufactured by the predecessor … . There are four exceptions to this general rule against successor liability. A corporation may be held liable for the torts of its predecessors if (1) the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, (2) there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, (3) the purchasing corporation was a mere continuation of the selling corporation, or (4) the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations … .

Here, the Bauer defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with evidence that they did not make or sell the subject ladder, that they were not liable pursuant to the general rule against successor liability, and that none of the exceptions to the general rule applied here. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to any of the exceptions to the general rule, including the two they contested: that Babcock Co., the purchasing corporation, was allegedly a mere continuation of Old Babcock, and that the Bauer defendants impliedly assumed Old Babcock’s tort liability.

With respect to the mere continuation exception, the underlying theory is that, if a corporation goes through “a mere change in form without a significant change in substance, it should not be allowed to escape liability” … . Thus, this exception applies where “it is not simply the business of the original corporation which continues, but the corporate entity itself”… . A continuation envisions something akin to a corporate reorganization, rather than a mere sale, with “a common identity of directors, stockholders and the existence of only one corporation at the completion of the transfer”… .

* * * The mere fact that some … former employees worked for [defendant]. was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Wass v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 06317, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN POST-COLONOSCOPY INSTRUCTIONS AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF A COLON PERFORATION CONSTITUTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant doctor’s (Aronoff’s) motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. Aronoff’s failure to provide plaintiff (Raymond) with written instructions and warning after the colonoscopy, and his failure to notify plaintiff after a colon perforation was discovered constituted sufficient evidence of proximate cause:

Establishing proximate cause in medical malpractice cases requires a plaintiff to present sufficient medical evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the defendant’s departure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury … . “Generally, expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause” … . ” A plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased the injury, as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased [the] injury'” … .

Here, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that Aronoff departed from accepted standards of medical practice in failing to provide Raymond with written post-colonoscopy instructions and failing to warn him as to the signs or symptoms of which he should be aware. Aronoff also failed to contact Raymond and instruct him to go to the hospital after Aro

noff had reviewed CT scan results that revealed a colon perforation. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s findings that these deviations proximately caused Raymond’s injuries … . Gaspard v Aronoff, 2017 NY Slip Op 06258, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

/ ,

NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the landlord’s (NYC Housing Authority’s, NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiff was shot by an unknown assailant in the hallway of his apartment building. Plaintiff alleged the assailant gained access to the building by virtue of a broken lock:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person”… . Recovery against a landlord for an assault committed by a third party requires a showing that the landlord’s negligent failure to provide adequate security was a proximate cause of the injury … . “In premises security cases particularly, the necessary causal link between a landlord’s culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant’s injuries resulting from a criminal attack in the building can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant, or someone allowed into the building by another tenant, plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” … .

Here, NYCHA met its prima facie burden by submitting evidence that the rear door lock was operable and not broken on the day of the incident, and, in any event, by demonstrating that the assailant’s identity remains unknown and that it could not be established that the assailant was an intruder … . In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “Mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” … . Martinez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06263, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (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