You are here: / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS COMPARATIVELY...

Search Results

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN COLLISION WITH DRIVER WHO FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY.

The Fourth Department determined there was question of fact whether the driver of a car with the right of way (defendant) was comparatively negligent in striking a car (driven by Deering) which failed to yield the right of way at an intersection:

There is no dispute that Deering was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way or that defendant was entitled to anticipate that she would obey the traffic laws that required her to yield the right-of-way to him … . Nevertheless, in moving for summary judgment, defendant had the burden of establishing not only that Deering was negligent, but also that he was free of comparative fault … . Defendant failed to meet that burden, inasmuch as his own submissions raised triable issues of fact whether he was negligent … . At his deposition, defendant testified that he saw the Deering vehicle at the intersection after he traveled over an elevated overpass on Route 5 that is approximately 300 yards from the intersection, but he looked away and did not see the Deering vehicle before or at the moment of impact. “[I]t is well settled that drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident,’ ” and defendant’s admitted failure to see the Deering vehicle immediately prior to the accident raises an issue of fact whether he violated that duty … . Thus, even though defendant had the right-of-way as he approached Bayview Road, he “may nevertheless be found negligent if he . . . fail[ed] to use reasonable care when proceeding into the intersection’ . . . A driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection’ ” … . Deering v Deering, 2015 NY Slip Op 09715, 4th Dept 12-31-15

NEGLIGENCE (DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN STRIKING CAR WHICH FAILED TO YIELD)/RIGHT OF WAY (DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN STRIKING CAR WHICH FAILED TO YIELD)

/ ,

EXPERT EVIDENCE OF A RECALL AND EVIDENCE OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN.

The Fourth Department, eliminating restrictions on the evidence imposed by Supreme Court, determined evidence from plaintiffs’ electrical expert and evidence of customer complaints were relevant to defendants’ duty to warn. Plaintiffs alleged an electrical defect in their motorcycle (manufactured by defendants) caused the accident. Plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of a recall made prior to the accident and evidence of customer complaints:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ electrical engineer expert and the customer complaints to the extent that such evidence is relevant to defendants’ continuing duty to warn. We therefore modify the order accordingly. “A manufacturer or retailer may . . . incur liability for failing to warn concerning dangers in the use of a product which come to his attention after manufacture or sale . . . through being made aware of later accidents involving dangers in the product of which warning should be given to users . . . Although a product [may] be reasonably safe when manufactured and sold and involve no then known risks of which warning need be given, risks thereafter revealed by user operation and brought to the attention of the manufacturer or vendor may impose upon one or both a duty to warn” … . “What notice . . . will trigger [this] postdelivery duty to warn appears to be a function of the degree of danger which the problem involves and the number of instances reported . . . [Whether] a prima facie case on that issue has been made will, of course, depend on the facts of each case” … .

Defendant’s recall was first issued in March 2004, prior to plaintiffs’ accident on April 30, 2004. A determination that plaintiffs’ motorcycle should have been included in the recall would be relevant to defendants’ duty to warn plaintiffs of the defect that, plaintiffs allege, caused a “quit while riding” event in their motorcycle and thereby caused or contributed to their accident. Plaintiffs’ expert, an electrical engineer, expects to testify in part that plaintiffs’ motorcycle does not differ in any material respect from those included in the 2004 recall, despite the fact that plaintiffs’ motorcycle did not have the same stator as the motorcycles affected by the recall. In our view, the expert’s qualifications as an electrical engineer qualify him to opine whether the motorcycles “were the same in all significant respects” … , and the fact that the expert has done no testing goes to the weight to be given to his testimony, not its admissibility … . Smalley v Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09712, 4th Dept 12-31-15

NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENDE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/DUTY TO WARN (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)

/ , ,

CLASS ACTION PROPERLY CERTIFIED IN CASE ALLEGING NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

In an action alleging defendants negligently discharged chemicals into the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction of property values and quality of life, the Fourth Department determined a class action was properly certified. The court explained the criteria:

“[A] class action may be maintained in New York only after the five prerequisites set forth in CPLR 901 (a) have been met, i.e., the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class as a whole, the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy” … . A plaintiff seeking class certification has the “burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901 (a) and thus establish[ing] . . . entitlement to class certification” … .

Although the individual class members may have sustained differing amounts of damages, it is well settled that ” the amount of damages suffered by each class member typically varies from individual to individual, but that fact will not prevent the suit from going forward as a class action if the important legal or factual issues involving liability are common to the class’ ” … . * * *

… [B]ecause “the typicality requirement relates to the nature of the claims and the underlying transaction, not the amount or measure of damages, [the fact that the class representative’s] damages may differ from those of other members of the class is not a proper basis to deny class certification” … . DeLuca v Tonawanda Coke Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09739, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTION PROPERLY CERTIFIED DESPITE DIFFERENCES IN DAMAGES)/CLASS ACTION (PROPERLY CERTIFIED DESPITE DIFFERENCES IN DAMAGES)/NEGLIGENCE (CLASS ACTION BASED ON DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (CLASS ACTION BASED ON DISCHARGE OF CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE)

/ , ,

SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF, THEREFORE, IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; SHERIFF CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN.

Plaintiff sued the county alleging plaintiff’s decedent was not properly screened and supervised when placed in the Erie County Holding Center where plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide. After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff was allowed to add the Erie County Sheriff as a defendant. The Fourth Department reversed, explaining that the Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the actions of the Sheriff’s Department and is therefore not “united in interest” with the County/Sheriff’s Department:

In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) both claims arose out of [the] same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant[s], and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well” … .

…. [Plaintiff did not satisfy the second prong, i.e., unity of interest. “In [the] context [of this case], unity of interest means that the interest of the parties in the [subject matter] is such that they stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other . . . Although the parties might share a multitude of commonalities, . . . the unity of interest test will not be satisfied unless the parties share precisely the same jural relationship in the action at hand . . . Indeed, unless the original defendant[s] and new [defendant] are vicariously liable for the acts of the other[,] . . . there is no unity of interest between them” … .

Here, defendant County of Erie (County) is not united in interest with the Sheriff inasmuch as the County cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the Sheriff or his deputies … . Nor is defendant Erie County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department) united in interest with the Sheriff for purposes of the relation back doctrine. The Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the deputies employed at the Holding Center … . In addition, the Sheriff’s Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County … , and thus an “action against the Sheriff’s Department is, in effect, an action against the County itself” … . Given that the Sheriff and the County are not united in interest, it follows that the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department are not united in interest, and the court therefore erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add the Sheriff as a party. Johanson v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 09736, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/SHERIFF  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)

/

VICTIM’S DEATH FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE ASSAULT WAS SUFFICIENTLY LINKED TO DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS.

In affirming defendant’s murder conviction, the Fourth Department concluded the victim’s death five months after the assault was sufficiently linked to defendant’s actions:

… [I]t has long been the rule in New York that ” [i]f a person inflicts a wound . . . in such manner as to put life in jeopardy, and death follows as a consequence of this felonious and wicked act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result. Indeed, it may be said that neglect of the wound or its unskillful and improper treatment, which were of themselves consequences of the criminal act, which might naturally follow in any case, must in law be deemed to have been among those which were in contemplation of the guilty party, and for which he is to be held responsible’ ” … . Thus, “[f]or criminal liability to attach, a defendant’s actions must have been an actual contributory cause of death, in the sense that they forged a link in the chain of causes which actually brought about the death’ ” … . Additionally, the “defendant’s acts need not be the sole cause of death; where the necessary causative link is established, other causes, such as a victim’s preexisting condition, will not relieve the defendant of responsibility for homicide . . . By the same token, death need not follow on the heels of injury” … . People v Pratcher, 2015 NY Slip Op 09730, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (VICTIM’S DEATH FIVE MONTHS AFTER ASSAULT SUFFICIENTLY LINKED TO DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS)/MURDER (VICTIM’S DEATH FIVE MONTHS AFTER ASSAULT SUFFICIENTLY LINKED TO DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS)

/ , ,

VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER PROPERLY ADMITTED IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL TO SHOW LARCENOUS INTENT.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s violation of a civil contempt order was properly admitted in defendant’s grand larceny trial to show larcenous intent:

The … order directed defendant’s businesses to turn over all monies they had received as a result of defendant diverting credit card proceeds from Webster Hospitality Development LLC (WHD), a company in which defendant held majority ownership and which was in receivership, to undisclosed bank accounts maintained for defendant’s businesses. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the contempt order does not constitute a finding that defendant stole the money; rather, it demonstrates that defendant’s businesses failed to abide by the earlier order to return money to WHD and to provide certain documentation to the receiver. We thus conclude that the contempt order was properly admitted as relevant evidence of defendant’s intent to deprive WHD of the money by “withhold[ing] it or caus[ing] it to be withheld from [WHD] permanently” (§ 155.00 [3]; see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293). Moreover, we note that “[l]arcenous intent . . . is rarely susceptible of proof by direct evidence, and must usually be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions’ ” … . Here, the contempt order had significant probative value inasmuch as it showed that defendant’s conduct did not merely constitute poor financial management but, rather, that defendant, through his businesses, intended to deprive WHD of the diverted money permanently. The court therefore properly concluded that “the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect” … . People v Frumusa, 2015 NY Slip Op 09718, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/PRIOR CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE  (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER RELEVANT TO INTENT IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL)

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, MADE ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, WAS NOT UNTIMELY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED ON THAT GROUND, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s request to proceed pro se, made prior to the prosecution’s opening statement, was not untimely and should not have been summarily denied on that ground. A new trial was ordered:

… [T]he judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial granted because the court erred in summarily denying, as untimely, his request to proceed pro se … . “Although requests [to proceed pro se] on the eve of trial are discouraged, the Court of Appeals has found that a request may be considered timely when it is interposed prior to the prosecution’s opening statement,’ as here”… . People v Smith. 2015 NY Slip Op 09757, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE MADE ON EVE OF TRIAL NOT UNTIMELY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE MADE ON EVE OF TRIAL NOT UNTIMELY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

/ ,

JUDGE’S RESPONSE TO JURY NOTE ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the trial judge’s response to a jury note allowed the jury to consider evidence of actions not charged in the indictment. Defendant’s conviction for endangering the welfare of a child was therefore reversed and the indictment was dismissed:

As set forth in the indictment and bill of particulars, as well as pursuant to the People’s theory at trial, the endangerment charge was based on the conduct alleged in the preceding six counts of rape in the second degree and incest in the second degree, of which defendant was acquitted. After receiving a jury note during deliberations, the court instructed the jurors that they were not precluded from considering conduct other than the alleged rape and incest when considering the endangerment charge. That instruction allowed the jury to consider conduct not charged in the indictment. ” Because the jury may have convicted defendant of . . . act[s] . . . for which he was not indicted, defendant’s right to have charges preferred by the [g]rand [j]ury rather than the prosecutor at trial was violated’ ” … . Additionally, based on the vague nature of the court’s instruction, “[i]t is impossible to ascertain what alleged act of [endangerment] was found by the jury to have occurred, whether it was one . . . for which he was indicted, or indeed whether different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts” … . People v Utley, 2015 NY Slip Op 09749, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (JURY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED)

/ , ,

PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.

The Fourth Department admonished the prosecutor for improper remarks in summation, but did not reverse the conviction. The court found the evidence of “physical injury” insufficient to support the Assault 3rd conviction and reversed that unpreserved error under a “weight of the evidence” analysis:

Despite this Court’s repeated admonitions to prosecutors not to engage in misconduct during summation, the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence when he insinuated that the victim regretted that she did not get out of defendant’s vehicle … . The prosecutor also improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy and bolstered the victim’s credibility, and did so repeatedly, by commenting on how difficult it was for her to recount her ordeal, first to the police, then before the grand jury, and finally in her trial testimony … . In addition, the prosecutor improperly suggested that the jury experiment on themselves to see how quickly bite marks fade … . Nevertheless, “[a]lthough we do not condone the prosecutor’s conduct, it cannot be said here that it caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law’ ” … . We admonish the prosecutor, however, “and remind him that prosecutors have special responsibilities . . . to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process’ ” … . * * *

We conclude, upon our independent review of the evidence, that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim sustained a physical injury … . The indictment alleged that defendant caused physical injury to the victim “by striking her in the face.” Although the victim testified that defendant struck her in the face, and photographs of the victim showed swelling and discoloration of the left side of her face, the victim did not testify that she suffered substantial pain from that injury or that she sought medical attention for it … . People v Gibson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09722, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/EVIDENCE (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY RE: ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION)/ASSAULT 3RD (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)

/ ,

VILLAGE’S AGREEMENT TO SELL ONE MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY FOR TRANSPORT TO PENNSYLVANIA WAS A TYPE I ACTION REQUIRING SEQRA REVIEW.

Upon remittitur after reversal by the Court of Appeals, the Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings re: the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement entered into by the Village of Painted Post. The Lease Agreement concerned the construction of a railroad transloading facility and the Water Agreement concerned the sale of one million gallons of water per day (gpd) to be transported (by rail) to Pennsylvania. The Fourth Department determined the Water Agreement was a Type I, not Type II, action which required review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Because the Village of Painted Post did not conduct a SEQRA review of the Water Agreement, the relevant village resolutions were annulled and a consolidated SEQRA review of both the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement was ordered:

Although the Water Agreement does not call for the use of “ground or surface water in excess of [two million gpd]” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [6] [ii]) and thus is not a Type I action under that subsection, Type I actions also include “any Unlisted action[] that exceeds 25 percent of any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated open space” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [10]). Where, as here, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has set a threshold clarifying that the use of a certain amount of a natural resource, e.g., land or water, constitutes a Type I action, it is reasonable to assume that the DEC has “implicitly determined that an annexation of less than [that threshold] is an [U]nlisted action’ ” … . We thus conclude therefrom that the Water Agreement is implicitly an Unlisted action. Inasmuch as there is also evidence in the record that the transloading facility may be substantially contiguous to a publicly owned park and the Water Agreement calls for the use of surface water in the amount of one million gpd, i.e., 50% of the threshold in section 617.4 (b) (6) (ii), the Water Agreement could also be deemed a Type I action under 6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (10).

Consequently, SEQRA review was required for the Water Agreement. Although the Village conducted a SEQRA review of the Lease Agreement, segmentation, i.e., the division of environmental review for different sections or stages of a project (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag]), is generally disfavored … . We thus conclude that the court properly determined, on the merits of the first cause of action, that all of respondent Village’s resolutions should be annulled and that a consolidated SEQRA review of both agreements was required. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 09707, 4th Dept 12-31-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/WATER (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)

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