You are here: / Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Injury from Colliding...

Search Results

/

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Injury from Colliding With a Window Near the Basketball Court

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether he assumed the risk of injury from colliding with an breaking a window near the basketball court on which he was playing. Plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit alleging that the window should have been covered with a screen or otherwise made safe. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the window represented a risk over and above the dangers inherent in the sport:

It is well settled that, “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks [that] are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . “A plaintiff, however, will not be deemed to have consented to concealed or unreasonably increased risks’ ” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of a licensed architect who opined that the window involved in the accident did not meet industry standards for use in a gymnasium because the glass was not covered by a protective screen, nor was it laminated or tempered to withstand impact by a person … . Thus, there is a triable issue of fact whether defendant ” created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport’ ” of basketball… . Barends v Town of Cheektowaga, 2015 NY Slip Op 0737, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/ ,

Question of Fact Whether the Municipality Created the Road Defect Thereby Negating the Notice Requirement—Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Sufficiently Identified Cause of Fall

The Fourth Department determined the requirement that the municipality be notified of a road defect before liability can attach did not preclude suit because there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the defect. The court also determined the plaintiff’s identification of the cause of the fall from his bicycle was sufficient to allow a jury to identify the cause without resort to speculation:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly denied that part of its motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it did not receive prior written notice of any defective or dangerous condition. Defendant asserted on its motion, and plaintiff conceded, that defendant did not have any such notice (…see generally Village Law § 6-628). Therefore, this case turns on whether defendant created the allegedly defective or dangerous condition with an “affirmative act of negligence” … . Here, plaintiff’s expert opined that the dangerous condition was caused by the intentional removal of paving material from the area adjacent to the water valve box cover at the time the roadway was resurfaced, and we therefore conclude that “plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant created a dangerous condition that caused the accident” … . * * *

Although a defendant ” may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall’ without engaging in speculation” …, we conclude that defendant failed to meet that burden here … . In support of its motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony and plaintiff’s testimony from a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, in which plaintiff testified that the accident occurred after the front wheel of the bicycle hit something on the roadway. Although plaintiff could not remember seeing the object with which he collided, he testified that the accident occurred in the immediate vicinity of a gap in the pavement adjacent to a water valve box cover, “thereby rendering any other potential cause of [his] fall sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” … . Swietlikowski v Village of Herkimer, 2015 NY Slip Op 07405, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/

Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against Mechanic Who Inspected Defendant’s Car—Plaintiff Did Not Allege the Mechanic Created or Exacerbated Any Dangerous Condition—Therefore the Complaint Did Not Allege the Mechanic Owed Plaintiff a Duty of Care

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not state a cause of action against the mechanic who inspected the defendant’s (Golley’s) car, with which plaintiff’s motorcycle collided. Plaintiff alleged the mechanic negligently allowed Golley’s car to pass inspection. However, the complaint did not demonstrate the mechanic owed a duty of care to plaintiff by creating or exacerbating any dangerous condition in Golley’s car. The court explained the relevant law:

Here, plaintiff alleged with respect to defendant that he knowingly passed a vehicle for inspection that should not have passed, but he did not allege, either in the complaint or in opposition to the motion, that defendant created or exacerbated any dangerous condition relating to Golley’s vehicle by inspecting it. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant did not conduct a proper inspection of Golley’s vehicle, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to allege that defendant assumed a duty to plaintiff by “launch[ing] an instrument of harm since there is no reason to believe that the inspection made [Golley’s] vehicle less safe than it was beforehand … . Murray v Golley, 2015 NY Slip Op 07395, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/ , ,

The Absence of Plaintiff’s (Buyer’s) Attorney’s Explicit Unconditional Approval of the Purchase Contract Invalidated the Contract, Despite Plaintiff’s Desire to Go Through with the Purchase

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an explicit (not implied) unconditional attorney approval of a real estate contract is a necessary pre-requisite for a valid contract. Here plaintiff’s attorney had approved the contract on the condition that an environmental warranty be provided by the sellers, a condition which was never met or explicitly waived. Despite plaintiff’s desire to go through with the purchase, defendant-sellers’ attorney correctly determined there was no valid contract of sale because plaintiff’s attorney never explicitly unconditionally approved it:

As the Court of Appeals has stated, “[c]larity and predictability are particularly important” in the area of law dealing with attorney approval of real estate contracts … . Here, we conclude that, although plaintiff could have unilaterally waived the environmental conditions that [his attorney] placed on his approval of the contract inasmuch as those conditions benefitted only him …, neither [of plaintiff’s attorneys] clearly and unequivocally did so. Thus, the contract was never unconditionally approved by plaintiff’s attorneys. * * *

“[C]onsiderations of clarity, predictability, and professional responsibility weigh against reading an implied limitation into the attorney approval contingency” … . If [plaintiff’s attorney] intended to waive the conditions placed … on … approval of the contract, he should have done so expressly and not left anything for inference, or he should have stated that he, as plaintiff’s counsel, unconditionally approved the contract as proposed by defendants. Because he failed to do so, we conclude that there was not a valid contract between the parties and that the court erred in directing defendants to sell the property to plaintiffs. Pohlman v Madia, 2015 NY Slip Op 07379, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/

Criteria for Class Certification Explained (Not Met Here)

The Fourth Department determined that an action by about 1900 patients who received insulin injections at defendant hospital was properly denied class certification. The patients were notified they may have been administered insulin by insulin pens shared by more than one patient and all were offered free testing for possible blood borne disease. No one tested positive for disease. The court concluded that whether a particular patient was actually exposed and whether exposure resulted in damages would have to be determined on a case by case basis. Therefore issues common to the class did not predominate:

“[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” … . The class representative “bears the burden of establishing compliance with [*2]the requirements of both CPLR 901 and 902” … .

Where, as here, no plaintiff has tested positive for the blood-borne disease to which he or she allegedly was exposed as a result of defendant’s negligence, a prerequisite to recovery is proof of actual exposure to the blood-borne disease … . The issue of actual exposure will require individualized determinations with respect to each plaintiff. Further, even if members of the proposed class could establish such actual exposure, “the extent of the damages resulting therefrom [is a] question[] requiring individual investigation and separate proof as to each individual claim” … . Thus, we conclude that, “even if there are common issues in this case, those issues do not predominate” …, and “[t]he predominance of individualized factual questions . . . renders this case unsuitable for class treatment” … . Westfall v Olean Gen. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07396, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/

Criteria for “Interest of Justice” Extension of Time to Effect Service Explained

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff an extension of time to effect service on defendant in the interest of justice.  An “interest of justice” analysis in this context does not require a showing of good cause for the extension:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, if service is not timely made, “the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.” Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension, we conclude that the court properly granted plaintiff’s cross motion in the interest of justice. That standard “requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter. However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … .  Swaggard v Dagonese, 2015 NY Slip Op 07398, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/

Law Re: Liquidated Damages Explained

The Fourth Department concluded that defendant’s papers were not sufficient to warrant summary judgment invalidating a liquidated damages provision of an agreement, but noted that plaintiff may not be able to prove the validity of the provision at trial. Liquidated damages are valid only if they bear a reasonable relationship to the loss; otherwise they constitute an unenforceable penalty. Here plaintiff sold defendant a car with the condition that the car not be re-sold for one year. Defendant sold the car two weeks after purchase and plaintiff sued to enforce the $20,000 liquidated damages provision of the “agreement not to export.”  The court explained the relevant law:

Liquidated damages are enforceable only to the extent that they comprise ” an estimate, made by the parties at the time they enter into their agreement, of the extent of the injury that would be sustained as a result of breach of the agreement’ ” … . As a general rule, a liquidated damages clause is enforceable only if the stipulated amount of damages “bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . If, however, the clause provides for damages that are ” plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced’ ” … .

Here, defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the amount of liquidated damages does not bear a reasonable relation to plaintiff’s actual damages. In support of his motion, defendant relied on affidavits from himself and his attorney, both of whom asserted, upon information and belief only, that plaintiff sustained no actual damages, and that the liquidated damages clause is therefore unenforceable. Defendant offered no evidence in support of those conclusory assertions, and therefore failed to meet his initial burden of proof … . Thus, the court properly denied defendant’s motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” … . Although defendant may be correct in contending that plaintiff cannot establish at trial that it sustained any actual damages as a result of defendant’s breach of the Agreement, it is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must affirmatively establish the merits of its cause of action or defense “and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … . Great Lakes Motor Corp. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 07394, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/ ,

Guilty Plea to Possession of a Weapon Charge in One County Precluded Prosecution for the Same Offense in Another County (Double Jeopardy)

The Fourth Department determined charges stemming from the possession of a weapon in two counties triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]). The charges arose from an incident in which defendant discharged a firearm into the bedroom window of an occupied, residential home in Oswego County during the early morning hours of March 5, 2012. Defendant was apprehended by the police later that day at a motel in Onondaga County, where a handgun was found in his vehicle. Prior to his trial in Oswego County Court, defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to, in Onondaga County Court, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for the handgun recovered from his vehicle. * * *

It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” … . “When successive prosecutions are involved, the guarantee serves a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit . . . and protects the accused from attempts to secure additional punishment after a prior conviction and sentence” … . This case presents a prototypical instance of a constitutional double jeopardy violation inasmuch as defendant was prosecuted and convicted of a crime in Oswego County to which he had pleaded guilty in Onondaga County. In both instances, the charge was the same: criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (3).

We reject the People’s contention that double jeopardy did not attach because defendant was convicted in Oswego County before he was sentenced on his guilty plea in Onondaga County. “[T]ermination of a criminal action by entry of a guilty plea constitutes a previous prosecution for double jeopardy purposes” … . People v Gardner, 2015 NY Slip Op 07363, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

/

Exclusion of Defendant’s Brother from the Courtroom Based Upon the Fear of a Testifying Witness Was Proper, Despite Lack of Express Findings by Trial Judge

The First Department determined the exclusion of a single spectator (defendant’s brother) during the testimony of a witness was proper, despite the absence of express findings by the trial judge. The witness expressed her fear of defendant’s brother. The court explained the analytical criteria:

The People established an overriding interest that warranted a courtroom closure that was limited to the exclusion of a single spectator during the testimony of a single witness … . Contrary to defendant’s arguments, the witness articulated a specific fear of testifying in the presence of defendant’s brother, and we find that this fear justified the limited closure … . The trial court was in the best position to determine whether the witness’ expression of fear rose to a level justifying the closure. We note that the court was aware of the brother’s approach to a different witness. Although “a timely objection . . . would have permitted the court to rectify the situation instantly by making express findings” …, defendant made no such objection, and thus did not preserve his complaint that the court failed to set forth express findings of fact to justify the exclusion of defendant’s brother. Accordingly, we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s ruling “implicitly adopted the People’s particularized showing” and was “specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered” .. . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 07335, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

/ , , ,

Criteria for the “Fiduciary Exception” to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of a Derivative Action Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in a matter of first impression, developed analytical criteria for determining whether documents sought by the plaintiff major investor (NAMA) in defendant limited liability company (Alliance) (formed for a major real estate development project) were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The documents at issue are communications between the managers of defendant Alliance and their attorneys, defendant Greenberg.  Supreme Court held that the 3000 communications were not protected by attorney-client privilege pursuant to the “fiduciary exception” to the privilege (re: derivative actions) because the interests of the plaintiff were not adverse to Alliance. However, that finding was not based upon a review of the communications. The First Department determined each individual communication must be reviewed to find whether it evinces an adversarial relationship. If so, such “adversity” would be only one factor to weigh in concluding whether “good cause” exists to invoke the “fiduciary exception” to the privilege. The First Department adopted the reasoning of a Fifth Circuit case, Garner v Wolfinbarger, 430 Fed 1093, which sets out a list of factors to be applied in finding good cause to apply the fiduciary exception to the privilege. “Adversity” is but one of those factors:

In the corporate context, where a shareholder (or, as here, an investor in a company) brings suit against corporate management for breach of fiduciary duty or similar wrongdoing, courts have carved out a “fiduciary exception” to the privilege that otherwise attaches to communications between management and corporate counsel. * * *

In 1970, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit extended the fiduciary exception to the corporate environment in Garner v Wolfinbarger (430 F2d 1093 [5th Cir 1970], cert denied 401 US 974 [1971]), for the first time allowing shareholders to use the exception to pierce the corporate attorney-client privilege. The Garner court was persuaded by two English cases that “treat[ed] the relationship between shareholder and company as analogous to that between beneficiaries and trustees” (id. at 1102). Relying on those cases and the traditional crime-fraud and joint-representation exceptions for the proposition that the corporate attorney-client privilege is not absolute, the court summarized its reasoning in the following way:

“[W]here the corporation is in suit against its stockholders on charges of acting inimically to stockholder interests, protection of those interests as well as those of the corporation and of the public require that the availability of the privilege be subject to the right of the stockholders to show cause why it should not be invoked in the particular instance” (id. at 1103-1104). * * *

While some factors in the Garner test are relevant to a determination of adversity, Garner did not create a categorical adversity limitation. Thus, adversity is not a threshold inquiry but a component of the broader good-cause inquiry. Moreover, of the Garner factors that pertain to adversity, some will indicate whether the parties are generally adverse, while others will require a review of the communications in dispute; the relevant factors may weigh against finding good cause to apply the fiduciary exception with respect to those communications that reveal adversity. Accordingly, a court may find that the party seeking disclosure has shown good cause to be given access to some communications but not others. NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 07346, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

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