You are here: / Question of Fact Whether Firefighter’s Injury Was Proximately Caused...

Search Results

/ ,

Question of Fact Whether Firefighter’s Injury Was Proximately Caused by Driver’s Negligent Operation of His Car Under the “Danger Invites Injury” Doctrine—Firefighter Was Injured Removing Injured Driver from His Car After an Accident

The Second Department determined a firefighter may be entitled to coverage under his own insurance policy’s supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) coverage. Plaintiff-firefighter responded to a car accident and injured his shoulder removing the injured driver, Goodman, from his car. Plaintiff recovered the limit ($25,000) of Goodman’s policy and sought to recover under his own SUM endorsement. Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department held it could not be determined as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injury was not proximately caused by Goodman’s negligent use of his car. Plaintiff had invoked the “danger invites rescue” doctrine in support of his argument that his shoulder injury was proximately caused by Goodman’s negligence:

SUM endorsements provide coverage only when the injuries are “caused by an accident arising out of such underinsured motor vehicle’s ownership, maintenance or use” … . Factors to be considered in determining whether an accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle include whether the accident arose out of the inherent nature of the vehicle and whether the vehicle itself produces the injury rather than merely contributes to cause the condition which produces the injury … . ” [T]he [vehicle] itself need not be the proximate cause of the injury,’ but negligence in the use of the vehicle must be shown, and that negligence must be a cause of the injury'” … . ” To be a cause of the injury, the use of the motor vehicle must be closely related to the injury'” … . “[T]he use of the underinsured vehicle must be a proximate cause of the injuries for which coverage is sought” … .

[Plaintiff] invoked the doctrine of “danger invites rescue” to establish that Goodman’s negligent use of the underinsured vehicle proximately caused his injuries. That doctrine imposes liability upon a party who, “by his [or her] culpable act has placed another person in a position of imminent peril which invites a third person, the rescuing plaintiff, to come to his [or her] aid” … . The doctrine also applies “where the culpable party has placed himself [or herself] in a perilous position which invites rescue” … . “In order for the doctrine to apply, the rescuer must have had a reasonable belief that the person being rescued was in peril” … .

Here, [the insurer] failed to establish that [plaintiff] was not entitled to coverage under the SUM endorsement. The evidence in the record establishes that Goodman’s negligent use of his vehicle directly caused the accident that led to him being trapped and in obvious need of medical attention, which, in turn, led to Rich’s intervention and resulting injuries … . It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that Goodman’s negligent use of his vehicle was not a proximate cause of [plaintiff’s] injuries under the doctrine of danger invites rescue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration. Matter of Encompass Indem. Co. v Rich, 2015 NY Slip Op 06432, 2nd Dept 8-5-15

 

/

Plaintiffs, Who Provided Management Services to a Club Described in the Media as “Run by the Mafia,” Did Not Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Remark Was “Of and Concerning” the Plaintiffs by “Innuendo”

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that the defamation claims were properly dismissed. The plaintiffs provided management services to a club, Cheetah’s, but did not own or run the club (plaintiffs provided food services and booked dancers). The club was raided by federal authorities and arrests were made based upon allegations of illegal “trafficking” of women who performed as exotic dancers at the club. A news report about the raid characterized the club as “run by the mafia.”  The defamation claims were deemed properly dismissed because the relevant remarks were directed to “Cheetah’s,” and were not, therefore, “of and concerning” the plaintiffs by “innuendo.” The dissenters argued plaintiffs had raised a question of fact whether the “run by the mafia” statement was “of and concerning” them.  The majority explained:

A plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving that the asserted defamatory statement “designates the plaintiff in such a way as to let those who knew him understand that he was the person meant” … . While a plaintiff may use extrinsic facts to prove that the statement is “of and concerning” him, he must show the reasonableness of concluding that the extrinsic facts were known to those to whom the statement was made … . Plaintiffs seek to state their case by innuendo. As this Court stated:

” The question which an innuendo raises, is [one] of logic. It is, simply, whether the explanation given is a legitimate conclusion from the premise stated.’ The innuendo, therefore, may not enlarge upon the meaning of words so as to convey a meaning that is not expressed” (… quoting Tracy v Newday, Inc., 5 NY2d 134, 136 [1959], affd 25 NY2d 943 [1969]).

The suggestion that the individual plaintiffs are necessarily identified as members of organized crime because they are employees of entities that provide management services to Cheetah’s — reported to be “run” by the Mafia — is simply not logical. It is based on innuendo and constitutes an attempt to enlarge the concept of managerial services to include domination and control of an organization by force, whether actual or threatened, in contravention of the rule set forth in Tracy. Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v CBS News Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06409, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

/ , , ,

Apportionment of Damages Between the City and the Contractor Who Negligently Set Up Lane Closures for Its Highway Work Was Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence—New Trial for Apportionment of Damages Ordered/Two-Justice Dissenting Opinion Argued that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Vouching for His Own Credibility and Attacking the Credibility of Defense Witnesses In Summation Warranted a New Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the weight of the evidence did not support a 65%/35% apportionment of damages to the city (65%) and the contractor (35%) who set up lane closures for highway repair work. Plaintiff was severely injured in an accident which the jury found was the result of the failure to adequately warn drivers of upcoming lane closures. Because the lane closures were the responsibility of the contractor, the majority determined the 65%/35% damages apportionment was not supported the weight of the evidence and sent the matter back for a new trial on the apportionment of liability. Much of the opinion, including the entirety of the dissenting opinion, focused on the propriety of remarks made by plaintiffs’ counsel during summation (vouching for his own credibility, attacking the credibility of defense witnesses, etc.):

It is well settled that trial counsel is afforded wide latitude in presenting arguments to a jury in summation … . During summation, an attorney “remains within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment in pointing out the insufficiency and contradictory nature of a plaintiff’s proofs without depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial” … . However, an attorney may not “bolster his case . . . by repeated accusations that the witnesses for the other side are liars” …. .

Although the City failed to object to the bulk of the challenged comments during summation, the City moved for an immediate mistrial based on comments impugning defense counsel, the reference to “Wang and his gang,” and plaintiffs’ counsel’s allegedly vouching for his own credibility. We find that although some of the comments were highly inflammatory, they did not ” create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair'” … . The jury had ample reason to question the testimony of Officer Pagano, lessening the danger that they were improperly influenced by plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks. Gregware v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06408, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

/ ,

The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close

The First Department, over an extensive dissent by Justice Saxe, determined that the defendants, who had entered an agreement to purchase plaintiffs’ condominium, were not justified in repudiating the agreement based upon on-going “firestopping” work in the condominium-building, and, even if the agreement had been effectively repudiated, the purported retraction of the repudiation was not “bona fide.”  Therefore, the plaintiffs-sellers were entitled to keep the purchasers’ $365,000 downpayment based upon purchasers’ failure to close. The issue on appeal came down to whether the plaintiffs-sellers breached a paragraph of the agreement which required them to clear the unit of any code violations of which the plaintiffs had been notified in writing by the condominium board of managers. The majority determined no such notice had been given to the plaintiffs-sellers. The majority further determined the defendants’ purported retraction of the repudiation was not “bona fide” because it was conditioned on proof of the completion of the firestopping work, thereby imposing a condition not contemplated by the contract:

… [D]efendants point to no provision in the contract that justifies their initial purported reason for canceling the contract, which was that it threatened the safety of themselves and their children. Nor do they claim that plaintiffs somehow prevented them from learning of the firestopping issue. To the contrary, the contract itself referred expressly to a … notice from the board of managers that discussed the status of the then ongoing firestopping project. This was sufficient to place defendants on notice of a potential issue that might have given them pause to execute an agreement in which they acknowledged they were accepting the unit as is.

Because defendants had no right to insist that the firestopping issue be resolved as a condition to closing, their “retraction” of the purported repudiation was ineffective. In order to be effective, a retraction of a contract repudiation must be bona fide … . Defendants’ acceptance of plaintiffs’ offer to schedule a closing was not bona fide, because it was conditioned on plaintiffs’ provision of documents and information establishing to defendants’ satisfaction that the firestopping had been completed. We disagree with the dissent that the letter from defendants’ counsel conditionally retracting the repudiation creates an issue of fact as to whether it was bona fide. That letter unquestionably adhered to defendants’ position, which had supported the initial repudiation, that plaintiffs had a contractual obligation to ensure proper firestopping in the apartment before delivering the deed. The clear implication of the letter was that, if plaintiffs could not establish to defendants’ complete satisfaction that the firestopping work had been performed, defendants would once again refuse to close. As stated above, this position was untenable, and clearly, contrary to the dissent’s view, sought to insert an additional material term or condition into the contract. Again, nothing in the contract required plaintiffs to perform any firestopping, and plaintiffs were entitled to view defendants’ continued insistence on proof that they had done so as an justified refusal to perform under the agreement. Beinstein v Navani, 2015 NY Slip Op 06403, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

/ ,

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Expert Evidence Re: False Confessions—Criteria Explained—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department addressed several significant issues in a lengthy decision ordering a new trial in a murder case (which will be the defendant’s fifth trial in the matter). Although the defendant’s girlfriend had testified against the defendant in prior proceedings, she feigned a loss of memory and refused to testify in the most recent trial. County Court properly held that the girlfriend was “unavailable” within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law 670.10 thereby allowing her prior testimony to be read into evidence. County Court should not, however, have allowed the People to amend the bill of particulars which, in response to the defendant’s alibi evidence presented in prior trials, extended the time period in which the crimes were alleged to have occurred. The focus of the decision, and the reason for reversal, was County Court’s error in excluding defendant’s expert testimony about false confessions. The confession was the principal evidence in the People’s case and was the product of seven hours of interrogation, 75 minutes of which was videotaped. The Second Department addressed the issue in depth:

Here … the proffered expert testimony was relevant to this particular defendant and the particular circumstances of the case, including the approximately seven-hour interrogation, the videotaped confession, and the lack of physical evidence or eyewitness testimony linking the defendant to the crime … .

In addition to reports from two relevant experts, the County Court was presented with a 75-minute video of the defendant’s late-night confession, taken after the defendant was in custody for almost 14 hours and interrogated for approximately 7 of those almost 14 hours. Among other things, the video shows that the defendant, whose hands were cuffed in front of him during the interview, spoke slowly and sat in a slouched position for a substantial portion of the interview. Further, the officers repeatedly employed suggestive and leading questions, fed the defendant specific details related to the crime scene, and used rapport-building techniques. * * *

Upon our consideration of the submissions and opinions of both experts, we find that the defendant made a thorough proffer that he was “more likely to be coerced into giving a false confession” than other individuals. His proffer clearly indicated that he was intellectually impaired, highly compliant, and suffered from a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, and also that the techniques used during the interrogation were likely to elicit a false confession from him … . Moreover, in light of the foregoing, the fact that no one had videotaped the nearly six hours of the interrogation that had been conducted before the confession was made raises significant concerns. People v Days, 2015 NY Slip Op 06731, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

/

“No Damages for Delay” and “Mandatory Notice” Clauses Precluded Suit

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract complaint, finding that the exceptions to the enforceability of a “no damages for delay” clause did not apply, and the “mandatory notice” clause precluded suit for “extra work.” Plaintiff was engaged by defendant to install heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment:

As a general rule, “contract clauses exculpating the contractee from liability to the contractor for damages resulting from delays in performance of the contract work” are valid and enforceable … . However, even where the contract contains such a clause, there are several recognized exceptions. As relevant here, a contractor may still recover for “delays caused by the contractee’s bad faith or its willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct” … . A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay damages “bears the initial burden of demonstrating prima facie that none of the exceptions to the ‘damages for delay’ clause are present” … .  * * *

… [P]laintiff attempts to claim compensation for tasks that allegedly constituted “extra work” beyond the scope of the parties’ contract. However, a provision in the contract required plaintiff to notify defendant that it considered a task to constitute extra work within 15 working days after being ordered to undertake the task or beginning to perform it. Here, plaintiff concedes that it did not notify defendant of this claim until five months after it began performance of the disputed task. Thus, “[d]efendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that [plaintiff] did not comply with the condition precedent” by providing timely notice … . Tougher Indus., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06388, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

/

Failure to Directly Address a Juror’s Stated Bias Required Reversal—“Bright Line” Rule Explained

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that, once the prospective juror (No. 383) expressed a bias based upon the age difference between the adult defendant and child complainant, the failure to gain the assurance from the juror that her prior state of mind will not influence her verdict and she will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence constituted reversible error. The fact that the juror assured the judge she would not vote to convict if she had a reasonable doubt and that she would follow the law as instructed was not enough to address the expressed age-related bias.  A juror who has expressed a bias must unambiguously assure the court she will put her bias aside:

Once a prospective juror has identified his or her own biased perspective, he or she “must expressly state that his [or her] prior state of mind concerning either the case or either of the parties will not influence his [or her] verdict, and he [or she] must also state that he [or she] will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence” … . “[N]othing less than a personal, unequivocal assurance of impartiality can cure a juror’s prior indication that [he or] she is predisposed against a particular defendant or particular type of case” …, and, accordingly, the “bright-line standard . . . followed throughout the state” is “that a prospective juror who expresses partiality towards [one party] and cannot unequivocally promise to set aside this bias should be removed for cause” … . * * *

Considering the entirety of the questions posed to juror No. 383 and her responses, juror No. 383 unambiguously acknowledged a form of bias — based on the respective ages of the victim and defendant — that she identified as preventing her from being a fair and impartial juror. After juror No. 383 identified her own bias, she was never asked a question that referenced whether she could set aside any biases she held, generally, or whether she could set aside her specific bias regarding the respective ages of defendant and the victim. Further, in her responses to questions posed to her, juror No. 383 never specifically made reference to the age issue after she identified it as preventing her from being fair and impartial, and she never agreed, more generally, that she could set aside any bias that she held and decide the case in a fair and impartial manner based on the evidence presented. Therefore, juror No. 383 did not “unambiguously state that, despite preexisting opinions that might indicate bias, [she would] decide the case impartially and based on the evidence,” because she never made any statement regarding her preexisting opinion, let alone an unambiguous statement that she could set such opinion aside (People v Arnold, 96 NY2d at 363)[FN3]. Accordingly, County Court committed reversible error in denying defendant’s for-cause challenge to a juror who never contradicted or retracted her statement that her bias related to the respective ages of defendant and the victim prevented her from being a fair and impartial juror … . People v Warrington, 2015 NY Slip Op 06380, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

/ , ,

Petitioner-Teacher Never Consented to an “Out of Area” Assignment—Therefore She Was Entitled to Seniority in Her Teaching Area, Despite Her Assignment to Another Area

The Third Department determined Supreme Court correctly annulled the commissioner’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment on the ground that her position was properly eliminated because she had the least seniority. Although petitioner was in the English tenure area, she was assigned to teach computer classes, which she had taught for 11 years. The commissioner determined she had acquired no seniority because she had not taught in her tenure area.  However, the relevant regulations require that a teacher consent to an “out of area” assignment. Because petitioner never consented to an “out of area” assignment, she was entitled to seniority in her English tenure area, despite the fact she was assigned to teach computer classes.  The Third Department noted that the Commissioner’s ruling constituted an artificial or forced construction of the applicable regulations:

Petitioner acknowledges that, although the Board awarded her tenure in the English 7-12 tenure area, she never spent 40% or more of her time teaching English classes. She contends, however, that her seniority is preserved by another provision of the Rules, which states that “[n]o professional educator, whether on tenure or in probationary status, may be assigned to devote a substantial portion of his [or her] time in a tenure area other than that in which he [or she] has acquired tenure or is in probationary status, without his [or her] prior written consent” (8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]).

Our review of the evidence reveals that petitioner was a professional educator (see 8 NYCRR 30-1.1 [e]) who was assigned exclusively to teach computer classes, which the Board admits was an assignment outside of her probationary and acquired English 7-12 tenure area. The record is devoid of evidence that petitioner was aware that she was given an out-of-area assignment or that she consented to it in writing. * * * Nowhere in the language of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) is there a requirement that professional educators must first spend some of their time teaching within their probationary or acquired tenure areas before earning the right to consent to an out-of-area assignment. Inasmuch as the Commissioner’s interpretation reads this nonexistent requirement into the provision, we view it as “an artificial or forced construction” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94).

The Commissioner’s interpretation also runs contrary to the underlying purposes of the Rules governing teacher tenure and seniority credit. As the Court of Appeals has noted, 8 NYCRR former 30.9 (b) (now 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]) “protects teachers from being deprived of credit in a previously appointed tenure area if they unwittingly accept, and serve in, out-of-area assignments” … . The “twofold protective purpose” of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) — that is, to protect teachers from unknowing, involuntary out-of-area assignments and allow for the accrual of seniority credit in their original tenure area if they should accept such an assignment — is not served if the provision is construed in such a way as “to block a teacher from receiving seniority credit which, absent school district error, would have been received by reason of actual service in an out-of-tenure area”… . Because the Commissioner’s interpretation of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) has precisely this effect on petitioner, we find that Supreme Court properly annulled the Commissioner’s confirmation of petitioner’s termination. Matter of Cronk v King, 2015 NY Slip Op 06396, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

/

Plaintiff Did Not Affirmatively Demonstrate Fire Was Not Intentionally Set by Merely Challenging the Insurer’s Arson Investigation—Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied—Proof Burdens at Summary Judgment Stage Explained

The Third Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in its breach of contract action against the insurer. Plaintiff’s restaurant was destroyed by fire. The insurer disclaimed coverage on the ground that the fire had been intentionally set. Plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking the dismissal of the insurer’s affirmative defense (arson) and judgment in its favor on liability. The court explained the relevant proof burdens re: the affirmative defense of arson at the summary judgment stage:

As the movant, plaintiff was required to initially demonstrate “the absence of genuine issues of material fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings, including any affirmative defenses” … . Upon the affirmative defense of arson, if plaintiff, as the insured, met its initial burden, the burden would then shift to defendant, as the insurer. Although defendant’s ultimate burden of proving the affirmative defense at trial would be by the standard of clear and convincing evidence …, this strict standard is not applied at this juncture. Assuming that plaintiff met its initial burden to demonstrate that the fire was not intentionally set and that plaintiff had no motive to commit arson, to defeat the summary judgment motion defendant was merely required to demonstrate “that plaintiff’s premises may have been damaged by arson and that plaintiff may have had a motive to see the property destroyed by fire” … . Importantly, “[e]vidence of motive and incendiary origin without more is sufficient to defeat an insured’s motion for summary judgment in an action on its fire insurance policy” … .

Plaintiff failed to offer evidence to establish that the fire had not been intentionally set and, instead, merely challenged the validity of defendant’s investigation, arguing that the evidence failed to affirmatively establish that the fire had been deliberately set. Morley Maples, Inc. v Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06395, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

/ ,

Verified Statement Demonstrated Site Contractor’s Improper Use of Funds Held in Trust for the Payment of Subcontractors—Plaintiff Subcontractor Entitled to Summary Judgment on Liability Re: Subcontractor’s Mechanic’s Lien

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff subcontractor in plaintiff’s action against the site contractor seeking payment for completed work. Plaintiff alleged it was underpaid for its work and filed a mechanic’s lien. The general contractor withheld 1 1/2 times the amount of the lien from its payment to the site contractor.  The plaintiff demanded a verified statement from the site contractor (showing the receipt and disbursement of funds held by the site contractor in trust for subcontractors) pursuant to Lien Law 76. The verified statement submitted by the site contractor indicated a multi-million dollar discrepancy between the amount it received and the amounts paid out. Because of the discrepancy, the site contractor was found to have used the funds it held in trust for subcontractors for purposes other than the trust. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to summary judgment on liability:

Pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A, owners, contractors and subcontractors are required to maintain funds in trust in order to “provide[] protection to certain parties involved in the improvement of real property, ensuring that they will be properly compensated for their services” … . Specifically, and insofar as is relevant here, “[t]he funds received by a contractor or subcontractor. . . shall be a separate trust and the contractor or subcontractor shall be the trustee thereof” (Lien Law § 70 [2]). A trustee, in turn, is required to, among other things, maintain books or records with respect to each trust, detailing the trust assets receivable, trust accounts payable, trust funds received, trust payments made with trust assets and transfers in repayment of or to secure advances made pursuant to a notice of lending … . A beneficiary of such a trust is entitled to, among other things, “receive a verified statement setting forth the entries with respect to the trust contained in such books or records” … . “Any use of the trust funds other than the payment of claims under the contract . . . is an improper diversion of trust assets” …, and the trustee’s failure to keep the statutorily required books and records “shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied or consented to the application of trust funds . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust” (Lien Law § 75 [4]). Anthony DeMarco & Sons Nursery, LLC v Maxim Constr. Serv. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06394, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

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