You are here: / FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL...

Search Results

/

FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the failure to include a return date in a notice of petition is no longer a jurisdictional defect and can be overlooked where notice was actually provided:

​

A “notice of petition shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the petition” (CPLR 403 [a]). The omission of a return date in a notice of petition does not, however, deprive a court of personal jurisdiction over the respondent … . Indeed, such a technical defect is properly disregarded under CPLR 2001 so long as the respondent had adequate notice of the proceeding and was not prejudiced by the omission… .

Here, it is undisputed that respondent had ample notice of the proceeding from its inception. Moreover, respondent has not identified any prejudice from the omitted return dates. The technical defects in the notices of petition should therefore be disregarded under CPLR 2001 … . Matter of Bender v Lancaster Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07853, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/PETITION, NOTICE OF  (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/RETURN DATE (NOTICE OF PETITION, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 403 (a) (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 2001 (RETURN DATE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE RETURN DATE IN A NOTICE OF PETITION IS NO LONGER A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, HERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NOTICE AND NO PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT))

/

MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, following the other three departments, determined that a motion to amend the pleadings no longer requires a demonstration of the merit of the proposed amendment:

​

We have previously adhered to a rule requiring the proponent of a motion for leave to amend a pleading to make a “sufficient evidentiary showing to support the proposed claim” … , that is, to make an “evidentiary showing that the proposed amendments have merit” … . However, we are persuaded to depart from that line of authority and follow the lead of the other three Departments, and we now hold that “[n]o evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025 (b)” … . Thus, the rule on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that the movant need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment and, “[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit”… . The rationale for adopting this rule is that the liberal standard for leave to amend that was adopted by the drafters of the CPLR is inconsistent with requiring an evidentiary showing of merit on such a motion. “If the opposing party [on a motion to amend] wishes to test the merits of the proposed added cause of action or defense, that party may later move for summary judgment [or to dismiss] upon a proper showing” … . NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v People Care Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07918, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))/PLEADINGS, AMENDMENT OF  (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))/AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS  (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (b) (MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS NO LONGER REQUIRES A SHOWING OF THE MERIT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT JOINS THE OTHER THREE DEPARTMENTS (THIRD DEPT))

/

TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined the law of the case doctrine prohibited the trial court, a court of coordinate jurisdiction, from deviating from a prior ruling in the commercial division. The commercial division had ruled the plaintiff restaurant’s exhaust system violated the NYC Mechanical Code:

​

The “law of the case doctrine is designed to eliminate the inefficiency and disorder that would follow if courts of coordinate jurisdiction were free to overrule one another in an ongoing case” … . Here, the trial court was prohibited from finding that plaintiff’s commercial kitchen exhaust system did not violate the Mechanical Code. The trial court adopted the earlier finding … when it held that [the] orders were the “law of the case,” and limited the issue at trial … . Glaze Teriyaki, LLC v MacArthur Props. I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07770, First Dept 11-9-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OF THE CASE, TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE  (LAW OF THE CASE, TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE, PRIOR RULING BY THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed most of Supreme Court’s rulings on the disclosure of documents in a billing dispute, including a report from a consultant, finding that the documents were not protected by privileges for attorney-client communications, attorney work-product, or material prepared for litigation. The criteria for all were described:

​

… [T]he report “does not include any legal advice, legal analysis or discussion of legal issues” nor does it disclose confidences of defendant, and ,,, it is not a communication “of a legal character” … . * * *Thus, the report was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

…[T]he report was not protected from disclosure as attorney work product, as this “privilege should be narrowly applied to materials prepared by an attorney, acting as an attorney, which contain his [or her] analysis and trial strategy” … .

Materials such as reports prepared by a third party, a nonlawyer consultant, during an investigation do not ordinarily qualify under this exception … . * * *

​

With regard to the claim that the report was protected from disclosure as material prepared for litigation, defendant’s “burden was to demonstrate that [the report] was obtained solely for litigation purposes” … , which “cannot be satisfied with wholly conclusory allegations”… . “[M]ixed or multipurpose reports are not free from disclosure” … . NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v People Care Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07909, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGES, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEYS, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE, PRIVILEGE,  REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT (REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/LITIGATION, MATERIAL PREPARED FOR (PRIVILEGE, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT)/DISCLOSURE (PRIVILEGE, ATTORNEYS, REPORT BY CONSULTANT IN THIS BILLING DISPUTE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT, ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT OR MATERIAL-PREPARED-FOR-LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not totally unemployed and was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant was winding up his corporation’s business during the relevant period of time:

​

“[A] corporate officer who performs activities in connection with the winding up of a corporation will not be considered totally unemployed, even if his or her activities in this regard are minimal” … . Following the sale of the business, claimant took measures in winding up the business during the time period in question, including changing the company name with the Department of State as required by the purchase agreement, distributing the monthly installment payments received from the purchaser of the business, and writing checks from the company account for accountant and counsel fees, taxes, insurance costs, a charitable contribution, office supplies and other business expenses. Under these circumstances, the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … . “Contrary to claimant’s assertion, actual financial gain is not a prerequisite to a finding that a claimant is not totally unemployed” … . Matter of Lasker (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 07924, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their defective design cause of action in this products liability case. The product is a “fire pot” which burns a gel poured into a cup. Apparently the gel exploded. There was expert testimony that it is difficult to see whether the gel is burning and reloading the gel while it is burning will cause it to explode:

​

… [P]laintiffs have established, as a matter of law, that the product at issue, consisting of the fire pot and the fuel gel, was defectively designed so that it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries. Plaintiffs have submitted evidence, including expert affidavits, demonstrating that the product has minimal utility, serving a purely decorative purpose, that it poses an extraordinary safety risk in that it can explode and propel flaming fuel gel onto persons in its vicinity and cause them to catch fire when a person attempts to light the fire pot with the fuel gel while the fire pot is already lit or hot, that when the fuel gel in the fire pot is lit but burns down, it has a nearly invisible flame, which can mislead users into perceiving the flame as extinguished and the fuel gel exhausted, that the viscosity of the fuel gel makes it easily adherent to skin and clothing which makes it very difficult to extinguish and that alternative and safer designs are available in that instead of designing the fire pot with a deep-seated stainless steel cup into which the fuel gel is poured, the product could have been designed using fuel gel in nonrefillable metal cans or cartridges that get inserted directly into the fire pot, which would eliminate the design defect that causes an explosion upon refueling the fire pot with the fuel gel as well as the related dangers flowing from the fuel gel flame being difficult to visually discern when the fuel gel burns down and the viscosity of the fuel gel. Finally, the experts opined that the defective design of the product was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries.

In opposition, defendant has failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the product was designed in a reasonably safe manner or whether the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries.  M.H. v Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07790, First Dept 11-9-17

​

 

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT))/DESIGN, DEFECTIVE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the traffic control measures taken by the defendants doing work on or near a road furnished the condition for the accident but was not the proximate cause of the accident. Defendant driver swerved to avoid a rear-end collision with a car that made a sudden left turn. The driver struck plaintiff, who was standing in the parking lane getting ready to cross the street:

​

Even assuming, arguendo, that the accident occurred within a “work zone” ,,, and defendants-appellants were negligent in the design and placement of temporary traffic control … , … we conclude that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident … . “A showing of negligence is not enough; there must also be proof that the negligence was a proximate cause of the event that produced the harm” … . We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the temporary traffic control at the site was a proximate cause of the accident. Any negligence with respect to the construction work merely furnished the condition or occasion for plaintiff being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street and was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Gregory v Cavarello, 2017 NY Slip Op 07791, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, (TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ROAD WORK, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC CONTROL (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))/HIGHWAYS (TEMPORARY ROAD WORK TRAFFIC CONTROL MAY HAVE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DRIVER STRIKING THE PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ROAD WORK DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s motion for summary judgment in this front-end loader/pedestrian accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when the front-end loader backed up over her in a municipal parking lot at night. The parking lot was deemed a “highway” for purposes of the applicability of the “reckless disregard for safety” standard for machinery used in highway work. But the Third Department held there were questions of fact about whether the reckless disregard standard was met. The court noted that the usual safety precautions used during the day were not used at night, when the accident occurred:

​

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) provides that the safety rules and regulations governing the operation of vehicles upon highways (i.e., the “rules of the road”) will “not apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway . . . [or] to hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway” . … [T]he Legislature has provided vehicles engaged in such road work the benefit of a lesser standard of care … — rather than having to establish ordinary negligence, an injured plaintiff seeking damages must instead demonstrate that “any person . . . [or] operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” acted with a “reckless disregard for the safety of others” … . * * *

​

While we agree with Supreme Court that the [parking] lot constituted a highway so as to invoke the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), that determination, standing alone, did not serve to insulate defendants from all potential liability for their actions that evening and entitle them to summary judgment. … Given [the] acknowledgment that the Village had a safety zone policy in place that called for the establishment of work zones when heavy machinery was being operated in parking lots during the daytime and chose not to implement it during nighttime operations, [the] candid testimony that a flagperson would have been helpful and may have been able to stop plaintiff before she crossed behind the loader and the lack of any admissible expert opinion dispositive of defendants’ claim that it did not act with recklessness, defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law … . Freitag v Village of Potsdam, 2017 NY Slip Op 07919, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING LOTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESS DISREGARD, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment was properly dismissed in this traffic accident case involving a police car. The court held that the officer was engaged in an emergency operation when he went through a red light at an intersection and struck plaintiff’s car. Even if the siren and emergency lights were not on, the officer was authorized to proceed through the intersection:

​

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since the record shows that defendant Kohler, a police officer, was operating a police vehicle while performing an emergency operation and did not recklessly disregard the safety of others before the accident happened … . The fact that Koehler was mistaken in believing that plaintiff was stopping her vehicle when he proceeded to pass through the red light did not render his conduct reckless. Koehler testified that as he approached the intersection, he reduced his speed and looked left and right. He was traveling approximately 10 miles above the speed limit when the accident occurred. Koehler attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiff by braking hard and turning the steering wheel to the right upon realizing that plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the intersection … . The fact that there is a question as to whether the police vehicle’s lights and siren were activated is not material because Koehler was not required to activate either of these devices in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of passing through a red light … . Lewis v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 07785, First Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY OPERATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/SIREN (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY LIGHTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))

/

INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION NOT ENCOMPASSED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy objected being lifted from a horizontal to a vertical position shifted momentarily. The Fourth Department found that the activity during which plaintiff was injured did not involve a risk covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

​

“Liability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . “Consequently, the protections of [the statute] do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … . Rather, the statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … .

Here, the harm to plaintiff was not “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … ; rather, the submissions establish that plaintiff was injured while lifting the heavy switchgear segment when the weight thereof momentarily shifted to his side as a result of instability or a slight downward movement of half an inch on the coworker’s side … . Although plaintiff’s back injury “was tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the [switchgear segment that] he was lifting, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . We thus conclude that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries resulted from a “routine workplace risk[]” of a construction site and not a “pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials” … . Horton v Board of Educ. of Campbell-Savona Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07806, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION NOT ENCOMPASSED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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