You are here: / PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STEPS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED...

Search Results

/ ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STEPS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ALTHOUGH ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WERE SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER (POTENTIALLY RENDERING THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case should have been allowed to present evidence of defendant synagogue’s special use of steps which were part of the public right-of-way but which lead to the synagogue entrance. Plaintiff slipped on ice on the “public right-of-way” portion of the steps and broke her ankle:

… [D]efendant proffered evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment that plaintiff’s fall occurred on public property, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact as to defendant’s liability as an abutter … . With respect to its special use theory of recovery, plaintiff points to the deposition testimony of defendant’s secretary and bookkeeper, who testified that she was unaware of who initially built the subject set of steps, or when, but that defendant rebuilt them prior to plaintiff’s fall. Photographs submitted by both parties make clear that the subject steps are not only directly in line with the synagogue’s main entrance, but match that entrance’s width with near exactitude, the entrance notably being wide enough to encompass two sets of double doors. There is proof that congregants attending Sabbath services and holiday services would access the synagogue via this entrance only. In addition, photographic evidence reveals that the portion of the raised sidewalk between the two sets of steps is constructed of more decorative pavers or cobblestones, laid by defendant, setting that area apart from the otherwise concrete sidewalk, arguably improving the overall appearance of the main entrance and visually linking the two sets of steps up to the synagogue.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every available inference, as we must, the foregoing was adequate to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the subject steps were constructed or altered for defendant’s benefit. Podhurst v Village of Monticello, 2022 NY Slip Op 00707, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

/ ,

THE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON THE OPINION OF AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT FOLLOW THE IMPAIRMENT GUIDELINES BY REVIEWING THE UPDATED X-RAYS OF CLAIMANT’S HIP (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the board relied on the opinion of an expert, Petroski, who did not follow the impairment guidelines by consulting the updated x-rays of claimant’s hip:

Nowhere in his … report … does Petroski … indicate that he had obtained and considered and reviewed updated X rays, as required by Special Consideration No. 8 of the impairment guidelines … , in arriving at his conclusion that claimant had sustained a 0% SLU [schedule loss of use] of her left leg. … [T]he deposition testimony of Petroski also does not reflect that had he obtained and considered updated X rays in rendering his opinion about the appropriate SLU of claimant’s left leg. Although Petroski stated that no new history was given at the time of or during his examination of claimant, he acknowledged that he did not recall declining to review X rays that claimant brought with her to the examination for him to review. … Inasmuch as Petroski did not obtain and consider updated X rays consistent with the impairment guidelines, the Board’s determination to credit Petroski’s finding that claimant sustained a 0% SLU was not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed … . Matter of Strack v Plattsburgh City Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 00710, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DOCTOR WAS AT WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHEN HE WAS SHOT DURING A MASS SHOOTING, HIS INJURY WAS NOT WORK-RELATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined the shooting of a doctor, Justin Timperio, although it occurred while Timperio was working at the hospital, was not a work-related injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Timperio had brought a negligence lawsuit against the hospital in federal court and, in the context of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, the federal court ruled the injuries did not arise from Timperio’s employment. The federal ruling did not colaterally estop the Workers’ Compensation Board from considering the claim in the first place (because it was not a final ruling), but the Board’s ultimate conclusion the injury was work-related was reversed by the Third Department:

The undisputed facts in the record demonstrate that the attack was perpetrated by an individual who was not employed by the hospital at the time of the attack (and had not worked there for over two years), was not and never was Timperio’s coworker, did not know Timperio and provided no reason for the attack prior to taking his own life. Nor did Timperio know the attacker, and there is no evidence that the attack was based upon an employment-related animus between the two individuals or that the attack had any nexus to Timperio’s employment or “performance of h[is] job duties” … . Such proof was sufficient to rebut the presumption articulated in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) and to establish that the assault on Timperio resulted exclusively from arbitrary, broad-sweeping and gravely maligned personal animosity and not from work-related differences with Timperio … . Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00711, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT DID NOT SUCCEED IN DEMONSTRATING HER CONDITION HAD WORSENED SUCH THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO INCREASED BENEFITS, HER COUNSEL’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESCINDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (THIRD DEPT). ​

he Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the rescission of the award of claimant’s counsel’s fee on the ground that the claim was unsuccessful was arbitrary and capricious. Claimant was unable to show her condition had worsened entitling her to increased benefits:

The initial application submitted by claimant’s counsel, which sets forth in detail the services rendered and the time spent in connection therewith, reflects that counsel represented claimant for a number of years, engaged in extensive correspondence with, among others, claimant, Petroski [claimant’s treating physician] and the carrier, reviewed various reports, attended hearings and successfully sought and obtained a reopening of this matter. Although counsel ultimately did not succeed in obtaining an increase in claimant’s loss of wage-earning capacity, the Board rescinded the fee award solely upon counsel’s unsuccessful efforts in this regard. Notwithstanding the Board’s broad discretion, this single-factor reasoning strikes us as arbitrary and capricious — particularly in view of the fact that claimant clearly received an economic benefit from counsel’s overall representation of her. Matter of Simmons v Glens Falls Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00712, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

/

THE LENGTH OF THE SENTENCE WAS NOT PRONOUNCED; RESENTENCING IS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County County, determined the failure to pronounce the length of sentence required resentencing:

“CPL 380.20 requires that courts must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered. When the sentencing court fails to orally pronounce a component of the sentence, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in compliance with the statutory scheme” … . This statutory requirement is “unyielding” … . Here, although the term of imprisonment was recited — on the record and more than once — at the time of sentencing, County Court “did not pronounce the length of the term of [imprisonment] in open court” … . People v Belcher-Cumba, 2022 NY Slip Op 00691, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

/ , ,

THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the wrongful death cause of action against defendant nursing home should not have been dismissed. Conflicting expert opinions raised a question of fact:

Defendant made a prima facie showing that it was not liable for the decedent’s injuries and death under Public Health Law § 2801-d(1) through the affirmation of its nursing expert, who opined that defendant did not violate the various federal and state regulations set forth in plaintiff’s bill of particulars. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact, because her expert did not address any rules or regulations that were violated … .

As for the wrongful death cause of action, the parties’ nursing experts had similar credentials in gerontology and nursing, and both were qualified to opine on the applicable standard of care for residential nursing facilities … . Thus, the experts’ conflicting opinions present an issue of fact as to whether defendant was liable for the decedent’s injuries.  Jackson v Northern Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00723, First Dept 2-3-22

 

/ , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE MADE “UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF” DO NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined “upon information and belief” complaint allegations of a fraudulent conveyance did not state a cause of action:

The complaint fails to state a cause of action for constructive fraudulent conveyance under former Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274 … . Defendants are members of S. Land Development LLC (S. Land), which previously held title to real property and against which plaintiff obtained a money judgment in 2019 in a related action. Plaintiff alleges that defendants transferred or otherwise encumbered S. Land’s assets, rendering it insolvent and precluding plaintiff from being able to collect on the judgment. However, since the allegations are made “upon information and belief,” the complaint does not sufficiently allege that any transfers were made without fair consideration or rendered S. Land insolvent … . L&M 353 Franklyn Ave. LLC v Steinman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00724, First Dept 2-3-22

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; COUNSEL SAID A GUILTY PLEA MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel because he was told pleading guilty may result in deportation when deportation was mandatory:

The existing record sufficiently demonstrates that defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, 369, 374 [2010]) when his attorney failed to advise him that his guilty plea to a drug-related felony would result in mandatory deportation, and merely stated that “this may and probably will affect his immigration status” … . The appeal is held in abeyance to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been made aware of the deportation consequences of his plea. People v Acosta, 2022 NY Slip Op 00737, First Dept 2-3-22

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION FOR RESENTENCING WHICH ALLEGED SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion for resentencing which alleged she was a victim of domestic violence at the time of the commission of the crime:

Provided that the defendant meets certain threshold eligibility requirements pertaining to, inter alia, the length of incarceration and the type of offense … , a defendant may move for resentencing in accordance with Penal Law § 60.12 (see CPL 440.47[1][c]). The motion itself … must make a preliminary evidentiary showing consisting of “at least two pieces of evidence corroborating the applicant’s claim that he or she was, at the time of the offense, a victim of domestic violence subjected to substantial physical, sexual or psychological abuse inflicted by a member of the same family or household as the applicant as such term is defined in” CPL 530.11(1) (CPL 440.47[2][c]). Furthermore, “[a]t least one piece of evidence must be either a court record, presentence report, social services record, hospital record, sworn statement from a witness to the domestic violence, law enforcement record, domestic incident report, or order of protection” … .

Here, the defendant’s evidence in support of her motion included affidavits of her sister and mother, as well as a purported transcription of her interrogation by the police. Together, this evidence corroborated her allegations that she was subjected to domestic violence by the codefendant at the time of the offense … , and that the defendant and the codefendant were “member[s] of the same family or household” … . People v Coles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00678, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in the foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice and “one envelope” requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate … that it strictly complied with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Kyle Lucas, a senior loan analyst employed by the plaintiff, did not make the requisite showing that Lucas was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and “therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish that it complied with the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). “[I]nclusion of any material in the separate envelope sent to the borrower under RPAPL 1304 that is not expressly delineated in these provisions constitutes a violation of the separate envelope requirement of RPAPL 1304(2)” … . … [T]he plaintiff acknowledged that the envelope … , which contained the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304, also included other information in two notices pertaining to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and bankruptcy. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Sirianni, 2022 NY Slip Op 00677, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

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