You are here: / DEFENDANTS’ CAR WAS STOPPED IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY...

Search Results

/

DEFENDANTS’ CAR WAS STOPPED IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER STRUCK IT FROM BEHIND; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STOPPING THE CAR IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (AS OPPOSED TO MERELY FURNISHING THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT?) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Feder defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this rear-end collision traffic-accident case. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car when the driver pulled into the shoulder lane because a speeding car crossed his lane. The Feder defendants’ car was stopped in the shoulder lane and the car in which plaintiff was a passenger struck it. The Feder defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because there were questions of fact whether stopping in the shoulder lane for a non-emergency reason constituted a proximate cause of the accident (as opposed to merely furnishing the occasion for the accident?):

“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” … . However, “[t]he mere fact that other persons share some responsibility for plaintiff’s harm does not absolve defendant from liability because there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … .. “Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … .

Here, the Feder defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Feder defendants’ own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether Abraham Feder’s conduct in stopping on the shoulder of the highway for a non-emergency purpose imposed upon them a duty of reasonable care to warn other drivers of the hazard posed by their stopped vehicle, and whether their failure to exercise reasonable care was a proximate cause of the accident … . Georgiadis v Feder, 2022 NY Slip Op 06690, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here defendants’ car was stopped in the shoulder lane for a nonemergency reason when the car in which plaintiff was a passenger struck it from behind. The Second Department held there were questions of fact about whether the car stopped in the shoulder lane was a proximate cause of the accident. The case illustrates the fine line between “furnishing the occasion for an accident,” which is not actionable, and a “proximate cause” of an accident, which is.

 

/

WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to retore the action to the calendar after it was marked off because plaintiff failed to appear should have been granted. A note of issue had not been filed, there had been no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order directing dismissal of the complaint. Therefore restoration to the calendar at any time is automatic:

Where, as here, the case was marked “inactive” before a note of issue had been filed, there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 for failure to appear at a compliance conference, “‘restoring a case marked “inactive” is automatic'” … . Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted “‘without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or whether [it] engaged in dilatory conduct'” … . Moreover, since this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame … . Thus, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff’s motion was not untimely. Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v Schiro, 2022 NY Slip Op 06689. Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Where a case has been marked off as “inactive,” there is no note of issue, there has been no 90-day demand and there is not order dismissing the complaint, restoration to the calendar at any time is automatic.

 

/ ,

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AIRWAY CLEANERS AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES IN THIS AIRPORT SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT ENTIRELY DISPLACE AMERICAN AIRLINES’ DUTY TO KEEP THE BATHROOM SAFE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACT COULD NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AIRWAY CLEANERS’ LIABILTY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Airway Cleaners’ contract with American Airlines did not entirely displace defendant American Airlines’ duty to maintain the bathroom where plaintiff slipped and fell. Therefore the contract between Airway Cleaners and American Airlines could not serve as the basis for Airway Cleaners’ liability to third parties (plaintiff) under Espinal:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, insofar as relevant here, an exception to this general rule applies where “the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 140).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Airway Cleaners, LLC, by demonstrating that a limited janitorial service agreement between Airway Cleaners, LLC, and American Airlines was not a comprehensive and exclusive agreement which entirely displaced American Airlines’ duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . DaCruz v Airway Cleaners, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06687, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here there was a contract between defendant Airway Cleaners and defendant American Airlines with respect to cleaning the premises at Kennedy Airport. The contract was not comprehensive enough to entirely displace American Airlines’ duty to keep the bathroom on the premises, where plaintiff slipped and fell, safe. Therefore, the contractor, Airway Cleaners, under the Espinal criteria, could not be sued by plaintiff.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THAT PLAINTIFF PLED GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT PROVE SHE WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE PLED GUILTY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DRIVE FROM HER HOME FOR COURT APPEARANCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this bus-car traffic accident should not have been granted. The defendants submitted conflicting evidence about how the accident happened. The fact that plaintiff pled guilty to a traffic offense does not necessarily prove she was negligent. Plaintiff alleged she pled guilty to avoid traveling from her home in New Jersey for court appearances:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they were free from fault in the happening of the accident, because their submissions in support of the motion contained conflicting accounts of how the accident happened, and failed to eliminate triable issues of fact, including which vehicle entered the other vehicle’s lane prior to the collision … .

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that the plaintiff pleaded guilty to the traffic offense of driving or operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner does not conclusively establish that she was negligent … . “It is well settled that a person who pleads guilty to a traffic offense is permitted to explain the reasons for the plea, and it is for the jury to decide what weight, if any, to give to the testimony” … . Here, the plaintiff contended that she pleaded guilty, inter alia, because she did not have the money to keep traveling to New Jersey for court appearances, and thus, it is for a jury to evaluate her explanation and determine what weight, if any, the plea is entitled to in determining if she was negligent … . Charles v American Dream Coaches, 2022 NY Slip Op 06685, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the fact that plaintiff pled guilty to a traffic offense is not proof of negligence as a matter of law because the reason for the guilty plea can be explained to the jury. Here plaintiff alleged she pled guilty because she did not have enough money to return to New York for court appearances. That raised a question of fact for the jury.

 

/ ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE SPONTANEOUS USE OF A KNIFE BY THE PERPETRATOR IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE PERPETRATOR’S INTENT, THEREFORE, WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for murder under an accomplice theory, determined the evidence defendant shared the intent of Mack, who stabbed the victim, was insufficient:

To hold a person responsible for the criminal conduct of another, the People must demonstrate that “when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he [or she] solicit[ed], request[ed], command[ed], importune[d], or intentionally aid[ed] [the principal] to engage in such conduct” (Penal Law § 20.00 …). In other words, when proceeding “under an acting in concert theory, [the People must prove that] the accomplice and principal [shared] a ‘community of purpose'” … . Moreover, in the case of willful homicide, “a spontaneous and not concerted or planned use of [a] weapon to kill is not, without more, attributable to the companion whose guilt in a joint design to effect death must be established beyond a reasonable doubt” … . In this respect, “[i]t is essential that the intent by [the defendant] to kill be fairly deducible from the proof and that the proof exclude any other purpose” … . …

The sole eyewitness testimony presented by the People established that the altercation between Mack and the victim began as a fist fight until the victim gained the upper hand and knocked Mack to the ground. When Mack got up, he began swinging wildly at the victim, at which point the eyewitness first observed that Mack had a knife in his hand, which had become visible because of the lights from neighboring establishments. The witness testified that he had not seen the knife prior to the victim knocking Mack down and no other evidence presented at trial established that the knife was visible prior to that point. * * *

Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we find that the jury would have been required to speculate that defendant had become aware of Mack’s spontaneous use of a knife during the altercation … . People v Jenkins, 2022 NY Slip Op 06652. Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the perpetrator, Mack, spontaneously pulled out a knife after he was knocked down in a fist fight with the victim. There was no evidence defendant was aware of Mack’s spontaneous use of a knife, and, therefore, there was no evidence defendant shared Mack’s intent to stab the victim.

 

/

IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A MOTION TO RENEW WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IT MUST BE EXPLAINED; HERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence presented in plaintiff’s motion to renew was available at the time of the initial motion. Therefore plaintiff’s failure to explain the failure to include it required denial of the renewal motion:

Plaintiff moved under CPLR 2221(e) for leave to renew defendants’ motion to vacate the default and compel arbitration. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted public court filings showing that the prior attorney was not incapacitated as he claimed between September 18 … and December 31 … and that the prior attorney had appeared in at least one hearing during that time. Plaintiff argued that the prior attorney’s explanation for his failure to appear on behalf of defendants, on which Supreme Court relied upon to vacate the default, contained material misrepresentations and that these new facts were sufficient to warrant renewal. In opposition, defendants submitted an affirmation from the prior attorney essentially reasserting the circumstances of his default. Supreme Court granted renewal, vacated the prior order, and reinstated the default judgment.

The record demonstrates that the court filings plaintiff relies on, which are matters of public record, existed at the time it submitted opposition to defendants’ vacatur motion. Plaintiff, however, did not provide in the renewal motion a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]…). Chris Grant Brohawk Films v Digital Seven LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06635, First Dept 11-22-22

Practice Point: If a motion to renew is based upon evidence which was available at the time of the original motion, the failure must be explained. Here the absence of any explanation required denial of the motion to renew.

 

/

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE IMPROPERLY SECURED BEAM WHICH STRUCK HIM FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM BEING AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action. A beam which was not properly secured fell on plaintiff. The fact that plaintiff could not explain how the beam fell did not preclude the award of summary judgment:

Plaintiff’s testimony that a beam fell on him as he was securing a scaffold on which his coworker was standing to strip concrete formwork beams from the ceiling, along with the unrebutted affidavit of his expert concluding that the beam was not properly secured, established his entitlement to summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . That plaintiff was unable to explain how the beam fell did not preclude summary judgment in his favor … . Fuentes v YJL Broadway Hotel, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06636, First Dept 11-22-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s expert concluded the beam which struck plaintiff was not properly secured and the expert’s conclusion was not rebutted. That plaintiff could not explain how the beam fell did preclude the award of summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action.

 

/ , , ,

THE JUDGE, PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL AGREED DEFENDANT SHOULD STEP OUT OF THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS DISCUSSED IN A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AGREEMENT TO HAVE DEFENDANT STEP OUT OF THE COURTROOM WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been present for the sidebar conference about the justification defense in this attempted murder by stabbing case. Defendant claimed he had a heart condition triggered by stress which causes his heart to race until he passes out. Defense counsel argued the condition was relevant to the justification defense because defendant felt he had to stab the victim before he passed out to protect himself. Before the issue was discussed the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel agreed the defendant should step out of the courtroom. The judge ruled the evidence of the heart condition could not come in unless the defendant’s testimony established a connection between the condition and the interaction with the victim:

… [T]he subject of the instant sidebar conference clearly implicated defendant’s peculiar factual knowledge such that his participation might have assisted him in advancing his justification defense to the murder and assault counts. The subject of the conference was whether defendant would be permitted to testify as to a medical (heart) condition with regard to his justification defense. During the sidebar conference the court repeatedly implored defense counsel to explain how defendant’s serious medical condition impacted his assessment of his physical safety. Defendant’s presence at the sidebar conference would have afforded him an opportunity to apprise the court, defense counsel and prosecutor of the exact details of his heart condition in order to demonstrate that it affected his assessment of the circumstances he was confronted with prior to the stabbing incident … . * * *

Although the right to be present at a sidebar conference need not be preserved by an objection … , the right may be waived. Such right may be waived either explicitly or implicitly by defendant … . …

… [D]efendant did not waive the right to be present at the sidebar conference. Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant did not personally waive his right to be present either explicitly or implicitly. At no time did defendant make an affirmative statement on the record that he did not wish to attend the side bar conference. And no one ever asked him directly. … [H]e was commanded to leave the courtroom so that the sidebar conference could take place in his absence. … [A]t no time was defendant made aware that he had the right to be present at the sidebar conference … . …

… [I]n the absence of any record discussion by the court with counsel and the prosecutor regarding defendant’s right to be present at the sidebar conference, defense counsel’s expression of lack of objection to his client absence from the sidebar conference is not an affirmative statement by counsel confirming that defendant himself was waiving his right to be present at the sidebar conference … . People v Girard, 2022 NY Slip Op 06645, First Dept 11-22-22

Practice Point: Defense counsel agreed to have the defendant step out of the courtroom when the justification defense was discussed in a sidebar conference. Defense counsel’s agreement did not constitute a waiver of defendant’s right to be present. The conviction was reversed.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE POLICE HAD VISITED PLAINTIFF SEVERAL TIMES IN RESPONSE TO HER CALLS ABOUT HER EX-BOYFRIEND’S VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AND THE POLICE HAD SPOKEN TO HER EX-BOYFRIEND (WHO LIVED DIRECTLY ABOVE HER), THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE POLICE SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE POLICE FOR PROTECTION; HER EX-BOYFRIEND SUBSEQUENTLY THREW HER OUT OF A SECOND-FLOOR WINDOW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over two extensive dissenting opinions, determined the fact plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend was subject to an order of protection at the time he attacked her and threw her out of a second-floor window did not create a special relationship with the police such that the municipality would be liable for failing to protect her. The majority concluded plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on any police promises that her ex-boyfriend would be arrested for violating the order of protection. “Justifiable reliance” is an essential element of a special relationship:

… [Plaintiff] failed to raise a triable issue concerning the “critical” fourth element of an assumed special duty … . Plaintiff testified during her deposition that she had no contact with the police on the day of the incident prior to the attack, that her ex-boyfriend was in fact at liberty that day, and that the officers never told her that her ex-boyfriend would be arrested for violating the order of protection. Plaintiff’s own testimony demonstrates that she did not relax her vigilance based on any police promises that her ex-boyfriend would be arrested for violating the order of protection. It also shows that the police were not on the scene or in a position to provide assistance if necessary … , nor had they promised to “provide assistance at some reasonable time” … . In these circumstances, plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on any promises made or actions taken by defendants.

From Judge Wilson’s dissent:

Mr. Gaskin [the ex-boyfriend] had violently assaulted Ms. Howell [plaintiff] before, beginning when she was pregnant with their child. The first time he assaulted her, he threw her on the floor and kicked her stomach, causing her to bleed and require hospitalization. On the basis of that assault, Ms. Howell obtained an order of protection against Mr. Gaskin, requiring him to stay away from and not communicate with her. Based on Mr. Gaskin’s subsequent conduct, Ms. Howell obtained seven additional orders of protection against him, the most recent of which issued less than two months before Mr. Gaskin threw her out of the window. How did it happen that a woman who obtained eight orders of protection against the same abuser wound up unprotected? * * *

In the week before Mr. Gaskin threw Ms. Howell out of the window, Ms. Howell called the police several times to report that Mr. Gaskin was violating the order of protection. … The officers told Ms. Howell that they would “ensure . . . that [Mr. Gaskin] would be removed from the premises.” The officers spoke to Mr. Gaskin, who told the officers that he would leave his apartment [which was above Ms. Howell’s] and stay at his uncle’s house. … The officers made Ms. Howell “feel assured he won’t be coming back.” Howell v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06633, CtApp 11-22-22

Practice Point: Although plaintiff had repeatedly made the police aware of her ex-boyfriend’s violations of the order of protection and the police had promised to arrest him, the majority concluded there was no special relationship between the police and plaintiff such that plaintiff could have justifiably relied on police protection. Ultimately, the ex-boyfriend, who lived directly above plaintiff, threw plaintiff out of a second-floor window. There were two strong dissenting opinions.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TORTURED AND MURDERED IN HER HOME BY HER MOTHER AND BROTHER; ALTHOUGH COUNTY AUTHORITIES HAD BEEN CALLED TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED INJURIES AND SHERIFFS HAD RETURNED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO HER HOME AFTER SHE RAN AWAY, THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON INTERVENTION BY COUNTY AUTHORITIES (CT APP).

​The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about the existence of a special relationship between plaintiff’s decedent, Laura, and the county such that the county could be liable for the torture and murder of Laura by her mother, Eva, and brother, Luke. Laura, was a 23-year-old woman with developmental disabilities. Laura’s brother, Richard, called county authorities about injuries to his sister. Richard’s allegations were investigated and deemed unfounded. On one occasion Laura ran away from home after an argument with her mother and was returned by county sheriffs. The Court of Appeals held there was nothing about the way the authorities investigated Laura’s alleged injuries and Laura’s running away which met the criteria for a special relationship creating “justifiable reliance” on intervention by county authorities:

… [T]o establish that the government voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what it generally owes to the public, the plaintiff must establish: ” ‘(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking’ ” … .

“[A]ll four elements must be present for a special duty to attach” … .

… [T]he justifiable reliance element “provides the essential causative link between the ‘special duty’ assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury. Indeed, at the heart of most of these ‘special duty’ cases is the unfairness that the courts have perceived in precluding recovery when a municipality’s voluntary undertaking has lulled the injured party into a false sense of security and has thereby induced [the injured party] either to relax [their] own vigilance or to forego other available avenues of protection” …

Months before her death, both CPS [Child Protective Services] and APS [Adult Protective Services] investigated the reports that Laura was being abused, concluded that those reports were unfounded, closed their investigations, and advised Richard that the investigations were closed and would not be reopened without new information. … Richard “did not in fact relax his own vigilance inasmuch as he made two follow-up calls to the APS caseworker asking her to reopen the investigation, and he was not induced to forego other avenues of relief” … . Similarly, the Sheriff’s deputies took no action that could have induced reliance. Maldovan v County of Erie, 2022 NY Slip Op 06632, Ct App 11-22-22

Practice Point: Under the “special relationship” theory, to hold a municipality liable for failing to intervene to protect a plaintiff from injury by family members, the plaintiff must demonstrate a special relationship had developed with the county such that the plaintiff could justifiably rely on intervention by the municipality. No such ‘justifiable reliance” was demonstrated in this case where a developmentally disabled young woman was tortured and murdered by her mother and brother. County authorities had investigated allegations plaintiff’s decedent had been injured, but the allegations were deemed unfounded. The fact that county sheriff’s had returned plaintiff’s decedent to her home after she had run away because of an argument with her mother was not enough.

 

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