You are here: / PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED MOTOCROSS RIDER, ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL...

Search Results

/ ,

PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED MOTOCROSS RIDER, ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL OF HIS BIKE UPON LANDING AFTER A JUMP; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE THAT SOME ASPECT OF THE LANDING AREA CAUSED HIM TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE BIKE ON A PRIOR PRACTICE RUN BUT DID NOT INVESTIGATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff, an experienced motocross rider, assumed the risk of injury when using defendant’s motocross track. Plaintiff alleged a pothole where riders landed after a jump was filled with a talcum-powder-like substance which caused him to lose control of the bike. The majority concluded plaintiff was aware of the risk associated with the material used to fill the pothole:

Considering that Fritz [plaintiff] testified that on both jump landings the back end of his bike “kicked up,” that he hit the same pothole and that he had to work to recover the bike, we are satisfied that he was aware of the potential for injury on that jump’s landing … . Fritz v Walden Playboys M.C. Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03524, Third Dept 6-29-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff testified he was aware that some aspect of a jump-landing area of the motocross track caused him to lose control of his bike briefly in a prior practice run but he did not investigate. The majority concluded he therefore assumed the risk associated with a pothole filled with talcum-like powder in the landing area. Plaintiff lost control of the bike in the area of the filled pothole on his second jump.

 

/ , ,

HERE THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NON-SIGNATORY AND THE PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT WARRANTED FINDING THAT THE NON-SIGNATORY WAS BOUND BY THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, after reinstating the tortious interference with contract cause of action, determined a non-signatory can be bound by a forum selection clause under the “closely related” doctrine. where the non-signatory and the party to the agreement have such a close relationship that it is foreseeable the forum selection clause will be enforced against the non-signatory:

We find that plaintiff alleged a sufficiently close relationship between Vivendi and the Editis Defendants to justify subjecting it to personal jurisdiction in New York … .  Plaintiff alleged that Editis … was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi, that Vivendi’s CEO was also the Chairman of Editis, and that Vivendi managed the Editis Defendants’ performance of the subject agreement …. . EPAC Tech. Ltd. v Interforum S.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03543, First Dept 6-29-23

Practice Point: Here the “close relationship” doctrine warranted finding the non-signatory was bound by the forum selection clause in the agreement. The non-signatory was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the party to the agreement and the non-signatory’s CEO was the chairman of the party to the agreement.

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FAILED TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INQUEST; THE APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE NEGLECT OF THEIR ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the application for damages in this personal injury action should not have been denied due to plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to submit medical records for more than a year after the inquest. Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by their counsel’s inaction:

Although plaintiffs’ counsel had timely subpoenaed the relevant medical records and those records were apparently delivered to the subpoenaed records room in the courthouse, they were not available at the inquest. Supreme Court therefore reserved decision to give plaintiffs time to submit evidence supporting their damages claim. After a period of more than one year in which plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide the requested information, Supreme Court issued an order … denying the application for damages on the ground of failure of proof.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the underlying default. Although we share the court’s concern regarding the extended delay and the inattentiveness of plaintiffs’ former counsel, counsel’s neglect in pursuing his clients’ action should not be permitted to redound to the clients’ detriment … . Counsel did not deny that he failed to respond to communications from the court, but explained that the delays were due to a problem in his firm’s case management system, which did not provide reminders … . These circumstances present a type of law office failure for which the clients should not be penalized , particularly in light of the strong public policy preference for deciding cases on the merits … . In addition, defendants defaulted and therefore will not be prejudiced … . Rosario v General Behr Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03560, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the attorney’s failure to submit medical records requested by the judge after an inquest was not the type of law office failure for which plaintiffs should be penalized. The judge should not have dismissed the application for damages based on counsel’s neglect.

 

/ , ,

THE PROOF THE FORECLOSURE NOTICE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage company in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance the the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he copy of the notice contains no indication that it was sent by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail … . Nor is there “[a] copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute” … . … [The affiant] did not attest to having any personal knowledge of, or familiarity with, [the company’s] actual standard mailing procedures during the relevant time period, which were designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Accordingly, [the affiant’s] assertion in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent to the defendant on March 14, 2013, at the address of the mortgaged premises, “by registered or certified and first-class mail,” was unsubstantiated and conclusory … . Ditech Servicing, LLC v McFadden, 2023 NY Slip Op 03452, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Yet another instance of the failure to prove the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304.

 

/ , , ,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CLAIMANT’S INJURY, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PROTECT CLAIMANT WHILE IN FOSTER CARE AND THE TIME THE CLAIM AROSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the Notice of Claim in this Child Victims Act proceeding sufficiently described claimant’s injury, the state’s failure to protect claimant while in foster care, and the time when the claim arose:

… [T]he claim sufficiently provided the defendant with a description of the manner in which the claimant was injured, and how the defendant was negligent in allegedly failing to protect the claimant from sexual abuse while a resident in a state-certified foster care facility. The claimant is not required to set forth the evidentiary facts underlying the allegations of negligence in order to satisfy the section 11(b) “nature of the claim” requirement … . As the claim is sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to investigate and ascertain its liability, it satisfies the nature of the claim requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11(b)… .

… The claim alleges that the claimant was sexually abused repeatedly in 1992 and 1993, on numerous and regular occasions, including conduct taking place in his room three to four times a week. This Court has stated recently in the context of the CVA, that “[w]e recognize that in matters of sexual abuse involving minors, as recounted by survivors years after the fact, dates and times are sometimes approximate and incapable of calendrical exactitude” … . Thus a claimant commencing a claim pursuant to the CVA is not required to allege the exact date on which the sexual abuse occurred … . As the claim here sufficiently alleges the time when the abuse occurred, the Court of Claims properly declined to dismiss the claim on that ground … . Davila v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03451, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: In this Child Victims Act case against the state alleging the failure to protect claimant in foster care, the Notice of Claim sufficiently alleged the injury, defendant’s negligence and the time the claim arose.

 

/ , , ,

AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER” WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED AS PERTINENT TO THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a statement in an email written by an attorney in a divorce action, referring to plaintiff as a wife beater, was pertinent to the divorce action and was absolutely privileged:

The defendant Dina S. Kaplan is an attorney who represented the defendant Eric Dorfman in a divorce action (hereinafter the divorce action). Kaplan allegedly represented to the court in the divorce action, including court personnel, that the plaintiff, an attorney and a nonparty to the divorce action, was the boyfriend of Dorfman’s wife. In an email exchange between Kaplan and Herbert Adler, an attorney representing Dorfman’s wife in the divorce action, Kaplan allegedly made a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, referring to him as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution.” In addition to Adler, the email was sent to court personnel and other attorneys. * * *

… [U]nder the extremely liberal test of pertinency, Kaplan’s statement allegedly referring to the plaintiff as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was pertinent to the divorce action and, thus, is absolutely privileged. The email exchange between Kaplan and Adler was initially focused on a dispute over Dorfman’s financial ability to pay his wife maintenance and child support. The conversation turned, however, to the behavior of the parties to the divorce action while caring for their children, and Kaplan’s statement that the plaintiff is a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was responsive and therefore relevant to the issue of the parties’ behavior … . Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the statement was “so outrageously out of context as to permit one to conclude, from the mere fact that the statement was uttered, that it was motivated by no other desire than to defame” the plaintiff, who was not among the participants in the conversation, was not otherwise mentioned in the email exchange, and was not even directly identified in the statement … . Davidoff v Kaplan, 2023 NY Slip Op 03450, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: If a defamatory statement made by a divorce attorney is pertinent to the divorce action, the statement is absolutely privileged.

 

/ ,

VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404; WHEN A NOTE OF ISSUE IS VACATED, THE ACTION REVERTS TO A PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE STATUS AND CAN BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT MEETING THE STRINGENT CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. The note of issue had been vacated but the action had not been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404. Therefore the criteria for restoring an action that had been marked off for more than a year did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 3404, “[a] case . . . marked ‘off’ or struck from the calendar . . . and not restored within one year thereafter, shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed without costs for neglect to prosecute.” “A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked ‘off,’ and after the case has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must demonstrate a [potentially] meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant” … .

Here, the order … vacating the note of issue was not equivalent to an order marking “off” or striking the case from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 … . Thus, CPLR 3404 did not apply “because the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status once the note of issue was vacated” … As it is undisputed that there was neither a 90-day demand served upon the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3216 nor an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and that discovery is complete, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar … . Carrero v Pena, 2023 NY Slip Op 03448, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Restoring an action to the calendar after it has been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404 for more than a year is subject to the stringent requirements of CPLR 3404. But vacating a note of issue, as opposed to marking off the case, restores the action to pre-note of issue status and the action can be restored without meeting the CPLR 3404 requirements because CPLR 3404 is not applicable.

 

/

​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s task of removing equipment (scaffolds, ladders, poles, etc.) from the worksite and loading them onto the top of a van was ancillary to the renovation work and therefore encompassed by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff fell from the roof of the van:

… [T]he defendants’ submissions failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s activity in removing equipment from the worksite and loading it onto the van was not performed as part of the larger renovation project that CDI had been hired to complete on the premises, including roofing and shingling work. The plaintiff’s role in removing the equipment after it had been used by the plaintiff and his CDI colleagues was an act “ancillary” to the alteration of the structure at the property, and protected under Labor Law § 240(1) … .

The defendants also failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that climbing on the roof of the van was not necessary to the task of securing the equipment on the roof, nor did they demonstrate that no safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) would have prevented the plaintiff’s fall. Ramones v 425 County Rd., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03489, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Removing scaffolding, ladders, etc. after use on the worksite was “ancillary” to the renovation work and therefore protected by Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Falling from the top of a van where equipment removed from the worksite was being loaded may be compensable under Labor Law 240(1) (there was a question of fact on that issue).

 

/ , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s robbery conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge acted as an advocate for the prosecution when questioning witnesses. The issue was not preserved but the Second Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

“[A] trial judge is permitted to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of the trial, and, if necessary, to develop factual information,” so long as the judge does not take on the function or appearance of an advocate … . Here, the Supreme Court engaged in its own lines of inquiry, which detailed the nature of the surveillance equipment tracking the defendant, elicited a detailed description of the perpetrator and the bags he was carrying, and what the perpetrator was observed doing on the video surveillance camera, asked leading questions as to what the guard saw and heard as the perpetrator left the store and triggered the store alarm, and noted that when the guard approached the perpetrator and asked for the merchandise back, the guard even said, “please,” but the perpetrator still refused to return the items.

The Supreme Court also repeated the perpetrator’s allegedly threatening language, “[K]eep going or watch what’s going to happen to you,” and noted that it looked like the perpetrator was reaching for something and the guard did not want to find out what it was. During the direct examination of the arresting officer, the court elicited the fact that the officer observed a duffel bag containing the stolen property on the subway platform next to the defendant.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court took on the function and appearance of an advocate, at times even engaging in a running commentary on the testimony against the defendant. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … . People v Pulliam, 2023 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A trial judge can ask questions of witnesses but cannot take on the appearance of an advocate for the prosecution.

 

/ ,

THE WASHINGTON DC ATTEMPT TO COMMIT ROBBERY CONVICTION COULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a Washington DC offense could not be the basis of a second felony offender adjudication. Although the issue was not preserved, the court exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of attempt to commit robbery in Washington, D.C., cannot be used as a predicate felony in New York (see People v Jurgins, 26 NY3d 607, 614-615; see also Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][i]; 160.00, 110.00; DC Code §§ 22-2801, 22-2802). Accordingly, we modify the judgment by vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender and the sentence imposed thereon, and we remit the matter … for resentencing. People v Blaker, 2023 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: The Washington DC attempt to commit robbery conviction could not be the basis for a second felony offender adjudication in New York.

 

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