You are here: / PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S...

Search Results

/ ,

PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a protective order prohibiting any non-attorney from accompanying plaintiff to a physical examination should not have been issued:

A plaintiff “is entitled to be examined in the presence of [his or] her attorney or other legal representative, as well as an interpreter, if necessary, so long as they do not interfere with the conduct of the examination[ ]” … . Here, the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the plaintiffs’ representative would improperly interfere with the conduct of the injured plaintiff’s physical examination … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a protective order precluding any non-attorney from accompanying the injured plaintiff in the examination room during his physical examination. Henderson v Ross, 2017 NY Slip Op 01186, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)/NEGLIGENCE (PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)/PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (NEGLIGENCE, PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)/DISCOVERY (NEGLIGENCE, PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)

/

SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined Surrogate’s Court had jurisdiction to issue ancillary letters allowing the heir of the owner of a painting confiscated by the Nazis to sue to recover the painting. The International Art Center (IAC), which allegedly has possession of the painting in Switzerland, did not have standing to challenge the ancillary letters. The painting, “Seated Man with a Cane” by Modigliani, may be worth $25 million:

… [A]lthough the authority of the Surrogate’s Court over a nondomiciliary’s estate in an ancillary proceeding is generally limited to estate assets within New York … , property includes a “chose in action,” e.g. a cause of action in New York ,,, .

Accordingly, contrary to IAC’s contention, SCPA 206(1) does not require the physical presence of the subject property in New York at the time the proceeding for ancillary letters was commenced. It is sufficient that the Estate had a valid “chose in action” against two New York domiciliaries (the Nahmads), a New York corporation (the Gallery), and IAC, a foreign entity alleged to be owned and controlled by New York residents and doing business in New York.

In this case, personal jurisdiction [over IAC] was acquired based on IAC’s admitted agreement with Sotheby’s to act as its agent to sell the painting in New York in 2008. Further, personal jurisdiction over IAC may be based on respondents’ allegations that IAC transacted business in New York through the Nahmads at the Gallery’s office in Manhattan. Matter of Stettiner, 2017 NY Slip Op 01168, 1st Dept 2-14-17

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTON TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING)/ANCILLARY LETTERS (SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTON TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONNDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING)/PAINTINGS (SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTON TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING)

/ ,

PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED.

The First Department held determination of the meaning of the payment guarantees at issue required reference to other documents. Therefore the guarantees were not entitled to expedited treatment pursuant to CPLR 3213 as instruments for the payment of money only:

“The prototypical example of an instrument within the ambit of [CPLR 3213] is of course a negotiable instrument for the payment of money—an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain, signed by the maker and due on demand or at a definite time” … . CPLR 3213 is generally used to enforce “some variety of commercial paper in which the party to be charged has formally and explicitly acknowledged an indebtedness,” so that “a prima facie case would be made out by the instrument and a failure to make the payments called for by its terms” … . A document does not qualify for CPLR 3213 treatment if the court must consult other materials besides the bare document and proof of nonpayment, or if it must make a more than de minimis deviation from the face of the document … . PDL Biopharma, Inc. v Wohlstadter, 2017 NY Slip Op 01151, 1st Dept 2-14-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/GUARANTEES (CPLR 3213, PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/CPLR 3213 (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)

/ ,

HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined a huge construction crane destroyed during Superstorm Sandy was subject to the “contractor’s tools exclusion” in the applicable policy:

… [W]e conclude that there is no coverage for that loss under the policy because any coverage afforded by that contract in the first instance is defeated by the contractor’s tools exclusion. That exclusion provides that “[t]h[e] Policy does not insure against loss or damage to . . . Contractor’s tools, machinery, plant and equipment including spare parts and accessories, whether owned, loaned, borrowed, hired or leased, and property of a similar nature not destined to become a permanent part of the INSURED PROJECT*, unless specifically endorsed to the Policy.”

“‘[B]efore an insurance company is permitted to avoid policy coverage, it must satisfy the burden which it bears of establishing that the exclusions or exemptions apply in the particular case, and that they are subject to no other reasonable interpretation'” . [Plaintiff] Extell, in particular, contends that defendants cannot have met that burden here because the crane is not a “tool” or “equipment” within the meaning of the contractor’s tools exclusion. The subject exclusion, however, also defeats coverage for “machinery,” and the crane falls squarely within this definition of that term. “Machinery” means, among other things, “machines in general or as a functioning unit,” and “machine” is defined as “a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task” … . Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01141, CtApp 2-14-17

INSURANCE LAW (HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)/CRANES (INSURANCE LAW, (HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)/EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE LAW, HUGE CONSTRUCTION CRANE DESTROYED IN SUPERSTORM SANDY NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE, CONTRACTOR’S TOOLS EXCLUSION APPLIED)

/ ,

OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a two-judge dissent, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed in evidence as a potential adoptive admission a recorded phone call between the defendant and the victim. The phone call was recorded by the jail when defendant was incarcerated. Defendant’s silence and evasiveness when the victim told him he had broken her ribs was the essence of the potential adoptive admission. The jury was instructed that defendant’s silence and evasiveness could be considered by them, but it was up to them to determine whether the silence and evasiveness was an admission:

Here, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law when it made the threshold determination that defendant heard and understood the victim’s accusations against him. The court properly concluded that the content of the conversation, itself, demonstrates that defendant both heard and understood what she was saying, but chose to give evasive and manipulative responses. This view is supported by the context of the call, where, in a domestic violence case, defendant voluntarily contacted the victim in violation of an order of protection in an attempt to influence her to drop the charges against him. Once this foundation was established, it was proper for the call “to be placed before the jury so that the jury might weigh the import, along with its other instructions and responsibilities” … . People v Vining, 2017 NY Slip Op 01144, CtApp 2-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/ADOPTIVE ADMISSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/ADMISSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)/SILENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADOPTIVE ADMISSION, OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION)

/ ,

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined defendant’s argument that three consecutive 25-year sentences arising from the same incident constituted cruel and unusual punishment was not preserved for review:

Defendant failed to preserve for review his claim that the sentence imposed by the court was “cruel and unusual.” Although defendant generally objected to the length of the sentence before the sentencing court, arguing that the sentence was draconian, he did not alert the court to his constitutional argument. Thus, the sentencing court was never given an opportunity to address any of the constitutional challenges that defendant now lodges with this Court. Accordingly, defendant’s “claim [ ] that his sentence constituted cruel and inhuman punishment [ ] is not properly before us” … . People v Pena, 2017 NY Slip Op 01142, CtApp 2-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)

/

PLEA TO HINDERING PROSECUTION FOR PROVIDING AND HIDING WEAPON STANDS, DESPITE ACQUITTAL OF THE SHOOTER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the defendant’s plea to hindering prosecution should stand, in spite of the acquittal in the murder prosecution of the codefendant whose weapon defendant provided and subsequently hid:

Defendant … challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of hindering prosecution in the second degree … . The courts below properly rejected defendant’s claims that his plea is constitutionally infirm and that his codefendant’s acquittal of the underlying felony renders defendant innocent. Neither claim is supported by existing precedent, and his innocence theory is counter to this Court’s holdings in People v Chico (90 NY2d 585 [1997]), People v O’Toole (22 NY3d 335 [2013]), and People v Berkowitz (50 NY2d 333 [1980]). * * *

The logical basis for rejecting defendant’s proposed rule — an assisted person’s acquittal forecloses any finding of a defendant’s criminal liability for hindering prosecution — is rooted in the nature of the crime itself. The intended goal of hindering prosecution is the assisted person’s evasion of criminal liability for the underlying felony. The more effective a defendant’s attempts to obstruct law enforcement, the more likely the assisted person will escape prosecution or be acquitted. Defendant’s rule would have the perverse result of treating as innocent a defendant who stymies an investigation, hides evidence — as in this case — or otherwise sabotages the prosecution, because those efforts lead to the assisted person’s acquittal. People v Fisher, 2017 NY Slip Op 01143, CtApp 2-14-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PLEA TO HINDERING PROSECUTION FOR PROVIDING AND HIDING WEAPON STANDS, DESPITE ACQUITTAL OF THE SHOOTER)/HINDERING PROSECUTION (PLEA TO HINDERING PROSECUTION FOR PROVIDING AND HIDING WEAPON STANDS, DESPITE ACQUITTAL OF THE SHOOTER)

/ , ,

CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined damages could not be apportioned against the (non-party) state in a negligence action in Supreme Court. The plaintiffs alleged a tree branch fell on plaintiffs’ car as plaintiffs were driving on a public street. The plaintiffs sued the property owner, but also filed a claim against the state alleging the state was negligent. The state can only be sued in the Court of Claims. Although, by statute (CPLR 1601], damages can be apportioned against a non-party defendant in the Court of Claims, the Court of Appeals held the statute does not allow damages to be apportioned against the non-party state in Supreme Court:

The statutory language permitting the State to seek apportionment in the Court of Claims against a private defendant if the claimant could have sued that defendant in any court of this State was specifically requested by the office of the Attorney General … . Pursuant to that language, as long as a claimant in the Court of Claims could have commenced an action against a private tortfeasor in any court in the State of New York, then the tortfeasor’s culpable conduct can be considered by the Court of Claims in determining the State’s equitable share of the total liability … . The statute does not, however, contain similar, express enabling language to allow apportionment against the state in a Supreme Court action … .

Plaintiffs, along with the State, argue that the inclusion of unambiguous language permitting the Court of Claims to consider the liability of a nonparty tortfeasor — while, at the same time, omitting language to allow the factfinder in Supreme Court to consider the liability of the State — demonstrates the Legislature’s intent not to allow apportionment of the State’s liability in Supreme Court. Moreover, even apart from the absence of language permitting apportionment against the State in Supreme Court, CPLR 1601 (1) provides that a nonparty tortfeasor’s relative culpability must not be considered in apportioning fault “if the claimant . . . with due diligence . . . was unable to obtain jurisdiction over such person in said action” … . Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01145, CtApp 2-14-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES,  CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/IMMUNITY (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)

/ ,

COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined the county was immune from suit by a student who was assaulted by a worker at a county-owned facility. The worker was referred to the lessee of the premises, the North Amityville Community Economic Council (NACEC), as part of a welfare to work program. NACEC only accepted referrals for persons with no criminal record. The Suffolk County Department of Labor (SWEP) referred the worker despite knowledge of his status as a level three sex offender. The court determined the county was acting in its governmental, not proprietary, capacity when it referred the worker and there was no special relationship between the county and the victim of the assault:

In this case, the specific act or omission that caused plaintiff’s injury was the County’s referral of Smith to NACEC through the County’s SWEP program, a referral made in spite of NACEC’s caveat that it would not accept candidates with a criminal record. The administration of SWEP … was quintessentially a governmental role. The County’s conduct in referring Smith was undertaken solely in connection with its administration of that program and was part of the County’s fundamental governmental activity. Therefore, we hold that the County was acting in its governmental capacity when it referred Smith to NACEC. * * *

There is no view of the evidence that could allow one to conclude that the County voluntarily assumed a special duty to plaintiff. Even if the County promised that it would not refer anyone with a criminal background, that promise would have been made only to NACEC and there is no evidence that plaintiff ever had any knowledge of NACEC’s request. In addition, … it is undisputed that there was no direct contact between plaintiff and the County. Tara N.P. v Western Suffolk Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 01255, CtApp 2-16-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT BY STUDENT ASSAULTED BY A WORKER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WHO WAS REFERRED BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF A WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM) 

/

NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF. 

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert had raised a question of fact about whether the actions of defendant truck driver (negligent application of the brakes) contributed to the accident:

… [A] tractor-trailer … driven by Mark C. Shaw … collided with a car driven by defendant Robin F. Lewis … , after Lewis made a sudden left turn in front of the tractor-trailer. After that initial collision, the tractor-trailer jackknifed, collided with plaintiff’s car, and ended up in a ditch on the opposite side of the road, on top of plaintiff’s car.

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them on the ground that Lewis’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the collision. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affidavit of an expert forensic examiner … . Plaintiff’s expert opined within a reasonable degree of professional certainty that Shaw’s conduct was a proximate cause of the collision with plaintiff’s vehicle because he inappropriately and negligently applied the brakes, which caused the tractor-trailer to jackknife after the initial impact with Lewis’s vehicle. The expert’s opinion was not based on speculation, but was supported by voluminous deposition testimony, police reports, and the New York State Commercial Driver’s Manual … . Pacino v Lewis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01099, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)/TRUCKS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)

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