You are here: / 14-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH RETRACTED BLEACHERS...

Search Results

/ ,

14-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH RETRACTED BLEACHERS DURING A BASKETBALL PRACTICE DRILL IN WHICH BOUNDARY LINES WERE TO BE IGNORED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case should have been granted. The 14-year-old plaintiff was participating in a basketball practice drill in which the boundary lines of the court were to be ignored. When plaintiff attempted to retrieve a ball that went over the boundary line she was pushed into the retracted bleachers. The Third Department held plaintiff assumed the risk of injury during that form of practice:

“The primary assumption of risk doctrine . . . encompasses risks involving less than optimal conditions” … . The opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the drill could have been safer by utilizing the boundary lines of the basketball court and having more space was insufficient to raise an issue of fact given that the failure to do so did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the drill or playing basketball … . Plaintiff’s expert likewise failed to cite to any specific industry standard violated by defendants … . Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the boundary lines of the basketball court acted as, or were intended to be, a safety mechanism to prevent a player’s collision with the bleachers. Because plaintiff did not satisfy her burden, defendants’ motion should have been granted … . Secky v New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04071, Second Dept 6-24-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER AND THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF HIS MOTHER; THE FILM ABOUT THE CRIMES DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50 AND 51 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision well-worth reading, determined defendant, the creator of a docudrama about Christopher Porco’s murder and attempted murder convictions, did not violate Porco’s right to privacy under Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. The statutes allow the depiction of newsworthy events, but the statutes could be violated by fictional material. The Third Department determined the “dramatized” or “fictional” aspects of the film did not violate the statutes, in part because the audience is notified that the film is “based on a true story” and includes dramatized and fictionalized material:

… [T]he film is a dramatization that at times departed from actual events, including by recreating dialogue and scenes, using techniques such as flashbacks and staged interviews, giving fictional names to some individuals and replacing others altogether with composite characters. The film nevertheless presents a broadly accurate depiction of the crime, the ensuing criminal investigation and the trial that are matters of public interest. More importantly, the film makes no effort to present itself as unalloyed truth or claim that its depiction of plaintiffs was entirely accurate, instead alerting the viewer at the outset that it is only “[b]ased on a true story” and reiterating at the end that it is “a dramatization” in which “some names have been changed, some characters are composites and certain other characters and events have been fictionalized.” In our view, the foregoing satisfied defendant’s initial burden of showing that the film addressed matters of public interest through a blend of fact and fiction that was readily acknowledged, did not mislead viewers into believing that its related depictions of plaintiffs was true and was not, as a result, “so infected with fiction, dramatization or embellishment that it cannot be said to fulfill the purpose of the newsworthiness exception” … . Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04072, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

/ , ,

AS LONG AS BOTH THE CERTIFIED AND FIRST-CLASS-MAIL LETTERS NOTIFYING A MORTGAGEE OF A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE ARE NOT RETURNED, THE MORTGAGEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 1125 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff property owner, pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1125, was properly notified of the tax foreclosure proceedings, despite plaintiff’s allegation that the certified letter was delivered to a post office box, not the street address. RPTL 1125 deems service accomplished if the letters are not returned:

Defendants were required to send the notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding to plaintiff “by certified mail and ordinary first class mail” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] … ). The record contains documentary evidence demonstrating that the petition and notice of foreclosure were sent via certified mail and first class mail to plaintiff at “4153 Broadway” in Kansas City, Missouri — the address for plaintiff as listed on the mortgage … .The record also discloses that neither of these mailings was returned. Accordingly, defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating that they complied with RPTL 1125.

In opposition thereto, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the tracking information sheet for the certified mailing sent by the County. This sheet indicated that the certified mailing was delivered to an unspecified post office box, as opposed to 4153 Broadway, in Kansas City, Missouri. To that end, plaintiff asserts that a material issue of fact exists as to whether it received notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding. The petition and notice of foreclosure sent to plaintiff, however, “shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States [P]ostal [S]ervice within [45] days after being mailed” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] …). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2021 NY Slip Op 04074, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

/ , , ,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION (TOP) WHICH BARRED HER FROM HER OWN APARTMENT WHERE HER CHILDREN LIVED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, reversing Criminal Court, determined the mandamus action against  a Criminal Court judge seeking a hearing on a temporary order of protection (TOP) should have been granted. The First Department found that the matter qualified as an exception to the mootness doctrine and heard the appeal despite the dismissal of the underlying criminal action. Petitioner was charged with assaulting a man with whom she lived in her apartment. The TOP barred her from her own apartment where her children resided:

We find that the Criminal Court’s initial failure to hold an evidentiary hearing in accordance with petitioner’s due process rights after being informed that petitioner might suffer the deprivation of a significant liberty or property interest upon issuance of the TOP falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine: “(1)[there is] a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) [it involves] a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) [there is] a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . Matter of Crawford v Ally, 2021 NY Slip Op 04082, First Dept 6-24-21

 

/ ,

CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the NYC Board of Education was required to provide random COVID-19 testing to city-resident students in charter schools, but not to charter-school staff or to nonparty charter schools:

… Supreme Court erred in directing the City to provide Covid testing not only to children but also to charter school staff, and charter schools which are not parties to this proceeding. Section 912 by its terms directs the school district to provide covered services to “resident children who attend” nonpublic schools, to the same extent such services are provided to children attending public schools (Education Law § 912). The statute does not require that such services be provided to staff or anyone else other than resident children. Accordingly, we modify the judgment, to limit relief to children attending petitioners’ charter schools, and not to children attending nonparty charter schools, nor to staff at any school. Matter of King v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 04083, First Dept 6-24-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s evidence of standing in this foreclosure action was inadmissible hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … the affidavit of James Green, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Green averred, based upon his review of “the business records relating to the subject mortgage loan,” that the plaintiff obtained possession of the note on June 14, 2006, and was in possession of the note as of the commencement of the action. However, Green did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the entity that generated the records or that those records were incorporated into the loan servicer’s records and routinely relied upon by the loan servicer in its own business. Thus, Green failed to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the records he relied upon to support his claim that the plaintiff had possession of the note as of the commencement of the action … . US Bank N.A. v Weinman, 2021 NY Slip Op 04051, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EIGHT-YEAR-OLD SON WAS MORE THAN HALFWAY ACROSS THE STREET WHEN STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian accident cause should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s eight-year-old son was struck by defendant and there was evidence the child was more than halfway across the road at the time he was struck:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendant in support of her motion, including a transcript of her own deposition testimony, failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether she was free from fault in the happening of the accident and, if not free from fault, whether the child’s purported negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . The evidence the defendant submitted indicated that the front passenger side of her vehicle came into contact with the child who, approaching from the defendant’s left, was more than halfway across the winding and curved roadway prior to impact (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1146[a], 1180[a], [e] …). Sage v Taylor, 2021 NY Slip Op 04048, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

/

MURDER SECOND DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER FIRST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the murder second degree conviction should have been dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of murder first degree:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25(1) under count 2 of the indictment, as well as the sentence imposed thereon, must be vacated and that count dismissed because that charge constitutes an inclusory concurrent count of the conviction of murder in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(viii) (see CPL 300.40[3][b] …). People v Morel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04032, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT RADIOLOGIST WAS ASKED TO EVALUATE A MAMMOGRAM AS A ROUTINE-SCREENING PROCEDURE AND, ACCORDING TO HIS EXPERT, DID SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED PRACTICES; PLAINTIFF WAS DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CANCER A YEAR LATER; THE RADIOLOGIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the radiologist’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice (failure to diagnose) action should have been granted. The radiologist was asked to evaluate a “routine-screening” mammogram and indicated there were no suspicious findings. A year later plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer and she died a little more than three years after that. From the radiologist’s perspective, the Second Department concluded, there was nothing to indicate that cancer was suspected and that anything more than a routine-screening was prescribed by plaintiff’s physician:

“Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient” … . “The question of whether a physician owes a duty to the plaintiff is a question for the court, and is not an appropriate subject for expert opinion” … .

Here, the radiology defendants established, prima facie, that [defendant] Blumberg discharged his duty to the decedent in accordance with accepted practice for radiologists … . Siegel-Goldman, the radiology defendants’ expert, concluded that Blumberg’s interpretation of the April 21, 2010 mammogram was in conformity with accepted practices. …

… [T}he mere fact that the decedent indicated on the mammography worksheet that she experienced some pain in her left breast did not impose a heightened duty of care on Blumberg, who never saw or treated the decedent, and whose only role was to interpret the mammography images and report his findings to the prescribing physician … . Mann v Okere, 2021 NY Slip Op 04014, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

/ ,

NO ONE, INCLUDING DEFENDANT DRIVER, SAW THE 17-MONTH-OLD BEFORE HEARING A LOUD “THUMP” AND FINDING THE CHILD LYING BEHIND DEFENDANT’S CAR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether she was negligence. Defendant driver heard a loud “thump” and plaintiff’s decedent, a 17-month old child, was found lying on the ground right behind defendant’s car. No one saw the impact:

Shortly before the accident, the driver had dropped off a passenger in a residential cul-de-sac, with several young children playing nearby. After pulling into a driveway and reversing out in the opposite direction, the driver began moving her vehicle forward again when she heard a loud “thump”—which was also heard by at least four other witnesses in the vicinity. Believing that her vehicle had come into contact with a parked car to her right, the driver began reversing her vehicle when a man outside urgently directed her to stop. Upon exiting the vehicle, the driver observed the infant lying on the ground “right behind” her vehicle, on the passenger side. The infant was taken to a hospital, where she died of her injuries the following day. The driver did not see the infant prior to the accident, and the record does not indicate that anyone actually observed the contact between the infant and the defendants’ vehicle. …

Under the circumstances presented, the evidence submitted by the defendants was insufficient to meet their prima facie burden of proof, since it failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding the driver’s alleged negligence, including her ability to see the infant prior to the accident … . Danziger v Elias, 2021 NY Slip Op 04008, Second Dept 6-22-21

 

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