You are here: / IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER...

Search Results

/ , ,

IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE SHE SIGNED WAS THE RESULT OF MUTUAL MISTAKE CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the release signed by plaintiff after a car accident was the result of mutual mistake. At the time plaintiff signed the release it appeared her injuries, including whiplash, involved only her cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions. After signing the release she was diagnosed as having suffered a mild traumatic brain injury:

… [I]nasmuch as the submissions indicate that plaintiff had been diagnosed with neck and back injuries only at the time she signed the release and that plaintiff’s symptoms were not medically attributed to postconcussive syndrome until after the execution of the release with additional uncertainty in the interim, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether, at the time the release was executed, the parties were under “[a] mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of [a] presently existing injury,” i.e., a traumatic brain injury … . We therefore … reinstate the complaint. DiDomenico v McWhorter, 2024 NY Slip Op 02634, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A release signed when both parties are not aware of an existing injury may be invalid as the result of mutual mistake.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE AIR BAG UNEXPECTEDLY DEPLOYED, CAUSING INJURY; DEFENDANT FORD’S EXPERT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CAUSE OF THE DEPLOYMENT WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PRODUCT DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Ford Motor did not present sufficient expert evidence to warrant summary judgment in this “unexpected-air-bag-deployment” case:

Just prior to the airbag’s deployment, decedent’s vehicle had collided with a deer. After the collision, decedent parked his vehicle on the side of the road, then he looked to his right to check on his passengers in the vehicle and looked to the left to see the deer. At that point the airbag deployed. * * *

It is well settled that a strict products liability cause of action may be established by circumstantial evidence, and thus a plaintiff ” ‘is not required to prove the specific defect’ ” in the product … . “In order to proceed in the absence of evidence identifying a specific flaw, a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to defendants” … . ” ‘Proof that will establish strict liability will almost always establish negligence’ ” … . * * *

Ford Motor’s expert failed to assert that there existed a likely cause of the unexpected deployment of the airbag that was “not attributable to any defect in the design or manufacturing of the product,” and therefore Ford Motor failed to meet its burden on its motion with respect to the strict products liability and negligence causes of action … . Keem v Ford Motor Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 02632, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Defendant Ford Motor did not present sufficient expert evidence to warrant summary judgment in this products liability/negligence action based upon the alleged unexpected deployment of an air bag.

 

/ ,

A DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET SUBMITTED PAST THE 60-DAY DEADLINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the deposition errata sheet should have been struck because it was submitted after the 60-day period expired:

Supreme Court erred in denying their joint motion to the extent that it seeks to strike plaintiff’s errata sheet inasmuch as the errata sheet was untimely (see CPLR 3116 [a]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. CPLR 3116 (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o changes to the transcript may be made by the witness more than sixty days after submission to the witness for examination.” It is undisputed that plaintiff did not submit the errata sheet within 60 days of her deposition, and submitted it over a month after the 60-day period expired, in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s reasons for the lateness under the circumstances did not constitute a good cause for the delay (see CPLR 2004 …). We note that we did not consider the errata sheet when reviewing defendants’ contentions regarding their motions for summary judgment. Pagan v GPK, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02631, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A motion to strike a deposition errata sheet submitted past the 60-day deadline should be granted.

 

/ ,

“GOOD CAUSE” FOR FILING A LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS, NOT IN THE REPLY PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s late summary judgment motion should not have been granted because the initial papers  did not demonstrate “good cause” for the late filing. The “good cause” allegations in defendant’s reply papers should not have been considered:

Defendant’s motion was … untimely … and, thus, defendant was required to demonstrate “good cause” for the untimeliness of the motion in its initial motion papers (CPLR 3212 [a] …). Indeed, “[i]t is well settled that it is improper for a court to consider the ‘good cause’ proffered by a movant if it is presented for the first time in reply papers” … . Inasmuch as it is undisputed here that defendant did not proffer any good cause for the delay in its initial motion papers, the court erred in considering the motion and should have denied it as untimely … . Worden v City of Utica, 2024 NY Slip Op 02628, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: If you make a late summary judgment motion, you must demonstrate “good cause” for being late in the initial motion papers. A “good cause” demonstration in the reply papers should not be considered by the judge.

 

/ , ,

THE SHOOTER, WHO WAS NEVER FOUND OR IDENTIFIED, WAS A PASSENGER IN A CAR DRIVEN BY DEFENDANT WHEN THE SHOOTER SHOT AT AND MISSED A PERSON SITTING IN A PARKED CAR; THE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s attempted murder and assault convictions as against the weight of the evidence, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was no evidence defendant shared the shooter’s intent. It was alleged defendant was the driver when his passenger shot at and missed a person sitting in a parked car. The shooter was never identified. There was no evidence defendant knew the victim:

… [T]he question is whether defendant shared the shooter’s intent to kill or seriously injure the victim. Even assuming, arguendo, that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence … , we conclude that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence … . Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of those crimes as charged to the jury … and considering that “a defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, alone, is insufficient for a finding of criminal liability” … , here the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “shared the [shooter’s] intent to kill” or cause serious physical injury to the victim, or the intent to use the gun unlawfully against the victim … , particularly given the lack of evidence “that defendant knew that the [shooter] was armed at the time defendant transported him” … .

From the dissent:

Defendant drove the vehicle while the shooter fired several times at the parked vehicle in which the victim was sitting in the front passenger seat, and the victim heard someone say “yo” as soon as the gunshots started. The police found the parked vehicle’s driver’s side windows shattered and shell casings on the ground next to the vehicle. A permissible and eminently reasonable inference from the facts was that defendant stopped or slowed down the vehicle in order to allow the shooter to fire several shots at the parked vehicle … . In other words, defendant shared the shooter’s intent to use a gun to kill or cause serious physical injury to the victim and “intentionally aid[ed]” the shooter to engage in such conduct (Penal Law § 20.00). In addition, defendant fled from the scene after the gunshots were fired and collided with another vehicle. The driver of that vehicle testified that, when she asked defendant to exchange paperwork and information, he told her to “move the f*** out of the way,” before he pushed her vehicle with his vehicle and drove off again. People v Lathrop, 2024 NY Slip Op 02618, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here the appellate court found the evidence of attempted murder legally sufficient but the verdict against the weight of the evidence (a difficult concept).

 

/

DEFENDANT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF MISSED A STEP AND WAS THEREFORE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant in this ladder-fall case raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall. The two-justice dissent disagreed:

We conclude that plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing that the ladder was “not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to [him]” through evidence that plaintiff fell when the ladder suddenly and unexpectedly shifted … . The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of [his] accident”… . We conclude that defendant met that burden through evidence suggesting that plaintiff fell from the ladder because he missed a step while descending, not because the ladder shifted or otherwise failed … .

From the dissent:

… [E]ven if there was non-hearsay evidence that plaintiff mis-stepped and missed a rung while descending the ladder, defendant still does not raise a triable question of fact with respect to proximate cause. “It is well settled that [the] failure to properly secure a ladder to insure that it remains steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)” … and, here, defendant does not dispute plaintiff’s allegations that defendant failed to properly erect, secure or place the ladder to prevent it from shifting. Missing a rung while descending the ladder is not an act of “such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the statutory violation as to constitute a cause sufficient to relieve [defendant] of liability” … . Krause v Industry Matrix, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02653, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here evidence plaintiff “missed a step’ raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall from a ladder.

 

/ , ,

FORMER AND CURRENT SECTION 413 OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW REQUIRES THE REPORTING OF ANY SUSPECTED INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY UPON A CHILD, WHICH INCLUDES SEXUAL ABUSE, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON SUSPECTED OF THE ABUSE IS NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined former section 413 of Social Services Law, as the current section mandates, requires that all instances of suspected intentionally inflicted serious injury upon a child be reported, regardless of who is suspected of inflicting it. In other words, the suspected intentional infliction of serious injury upon a child must be reported, even if the person suspected of inflicting it is not a person legally responsible for the child. Despite this finding, the Fourth Department held that the cause of action based upon former section 413 should have been dismissed because the complaint does not allege the defendant town had received information that its employee, plaintiff’s youth baseball coach, was sexually assaulting plaintiff:

… [W]e conclude that Social Services Law former § 413 mandated, as the current version mandates, the reporting of every instance of suspected intentionally inflicted serious physical injury upon a child, regardless of who is suspected to have inflicted it, thereby triggering an investigation of the child’s parent or other legally responsible person—as a “subject of the report”—to determine whether, inter alia, that person inflicted or allowed the harm to be inflicted upon the child. “[T]he purpose of [the child protective services provisions under Social Services Law article 6, title 6, is] to encourage more complete reporting of suspected child abuse and maltreatment,” not less (Social Services Law § 411), and the former and current versions of sections 412 (2) (b) and 413 apply equally to children who have had a serious physical injury intentionally inflicted by, inter alia, a coach, a classroom teacher, a neighbor, another child or a distant relative who is not legally responsible for the child’s care.

From the dissent:

We write separately only to express our disagreement with the conclusion of the majority that … a mandated reporter is statutorily required to report any person who inflicted serious physical injury upon a child regardless of whether there is a parental or guardianship relationship, even where that same mandated reporter would not be required to report conduct constituting abuse. LG 70 Doe v Town of Amherst, 2024 NY Slip Op 02651, Fourth Deppt 5-10-24

Practice Point: Even where a person who is not legally responsible for the care of child is suspected of sexually abusing the child, the abuse must be reported pursuant to Social Services Law section 413.

 

/ , ,

PROOF OF THE VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY WAS INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s possession-of-stolen-property conviction, determined the value of the property was not established:

We agree with defendant that, with respect to his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree under count 1 of the indictment, there is legally insufficient evidence establishing the value of the items seized from the storage unit. Although defendant did not preserve that issue for our review, we exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . “A person is guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree when [that person] knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit [that person] or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof, and when the value of the property exceeds three thousand dollars” … . It is well settled that “a victim must provide a basis of knowledge for [their] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value” … . “Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient” to establish the value of the property … . Although the People elicited some valuation testimony from the victims at trial, such testimony did not include the basis for the victims’ knowledge of the value of most of the items in the storage unit … . We conclude on this record that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the value of the property taken exceeded $3,000 … . The evidence is legally sufficient, however, to establish that defendant committed the lesser included offense of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see § 165.40). People v Hensley, 2024 NY Slip Op 02650, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: The basis for the victim’s knowledge of the value of the stolen property was not demonstrated; possession-of-stolen-property conviction reduced.

 

/ , , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S VISITATION WITHOUT MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have suspended father’s visitation without making findings of fact:

The father … contends that the court failed to make any factual findings whatsoever to support the determination to suspend the father’s visitation with the child, and that the matter should be remitted to allow the court to make such findings. We agree. It is “well established that the court is obligated ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” … . Here, the court completely failed to follow that well-established rule when it failed to issue any factual findings to support its determination … , either with respect to whether there had been a change in circumstances … or the relevant factors that it considered in making a best interests of the child determination … . “Effective appellate review, whatever the case but especially in child visitation, custody or neglect proceedings, requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” … . We therefore reverse the amended order and remit the matter to Family Court to make a determination on the petition including specific findings as to a change in circumstances and the best interests of the child, following an additional hearing if necessary … . Matter of Miller v Boyden, 2024 NY Slip Op 02648, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court should not have suspended father’s visitation without making findings of fact because appellate review is impossible; matter remitted.

 

/ ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT WHO PERFORMED THE SURGERY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ANOTHER SURGEON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action against the resident who performed the surgery (Kent) should have been dismissed because the resident was acting under the supervision of another surgeon (Doak):

With respect to the appeal by Kent and the Kaleida Health defendants, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their motion (Kaleida motion) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims against Kent because Kent did not exercise independent medical judgment during the surgery. It is well settled that a ” ‘resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice so long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene’ ” … , even where the resident ” ‘played an active role in [the plaintiff’s] procedure’ ” … . Kent and the Kaleida Health defendants met their burden on the Kaleida motion with respect to Kent by submitting evidence that plaintiff was Doak’s patient, Doak determined the surgery that was to be performed, and Doak directly supervised Kent during the facetectomy, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Van Hook v Doak, 2024 NY Slip Op 02641, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A resident who does not exercise independent medical judgment when performing surgery under the supervision of another surgeon cannot be sued for medical malpractice.

 

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