You are here: / IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A FIRE TRUCK DRIVEN BY A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER,...

Search Results

/ , ,

IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVING A FIRE TRUCK DRIVEN BY A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER, THE FIRE DISTRICT CAN BE HELD TO A NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO A RECKLESS DISREGARD, STANDARD PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-B (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the defendant volunteer fire district could be held liable for a traffic accident under a negligence, as opposed to reckless disregard, standard, pursuant General Municipal Law 205-b. The dissent argued the reckless disregard standard applies because General Municipal Law 205-b does not specify a particular standard of care:

Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-b, “fire districts created pursuant to law shall be liable for the negligence of volunteer firefighters duly appointed to serve therein in the operation of vehicles owned by the fire district upon the public streets and highways of the fire district, provided such volunteer firefighters, at the time of any accident or injury, were acting in the discharge of their duties.” Thus, contrary to the Fire District’s contention, it was not limited to liability for conduct rising to the level of “reckless disregard” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), and could be held liable for the ordinary negligence of a volunteer firefighter operating the Fire District’s vehicle … . Anderson v Commack Fire Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 03821, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: WHETHER PLAINTIFF PHARMACY COULD SEEK PAYMENT OF PRESCRIPTIONS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (WCB) HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court had jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action, even though the case involved whether plaintiff pharmacy was entitled to payment for prescriptions under the Workers’ Compensation Law, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB):

No party accepted responsibility for the payment of the outstanding prescription bills and the plaintiff commenced this action seeking … a judgment declaring that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not prohibit a pharmacy from seeking payment of a prescription bill from the responsible party in a plenary proceeding in a court of appropriate jurisdiction … . * * *

Pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Supreme Court “may render a declaratory judgment having the effect of a final judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. If the court declines to render such a judgment it shall state its grounds.”

The Court of Appeals has ruled that “primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board” [WCB]… . Thus, while the Supreme Court properly determined that the appropriate forum to resolve the issues raised in the complaint is the WCB, the WCB’s jurisdiction is primary and not exclusive. … [S]ince this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have denied the WCB defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction … . 21st Century Pharmacy v American Intl. Group, 2021 NY Slip Op 03820, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

/ ,

BECAUSE THE COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PLACE PETITIONER IN CUSTODY, THE COURT COULD NOT ORDER PETITIONER TO BE REMANDED TO RIKER’S ISLAND FOR A CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMINATION; THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court was not authorized to remand the petitioner, Wei Li, to Riker’s Island for a CPL article 730 examination because defendant was charged with a misdemeanor and was not in custody. Therefore the habeas corpus petition should have been granted:

… [T]he references in CPL 730.20(2) and (3) to the defendant either having been theretofore released on bail or on his or her own recognizance, or being in custody, respectively, at the time a court issues an order of examination presuppose that a securing order has been issued upon arraignment as required by law (see CPL 170.10[7]; 210.15[6]; 510.10[1]). As such, a defendant’s previously determined, or statutorily mandated, liberty status—either release or in custody—cannot be changed because a CPL article 730 examination is ordered: if the defendant has been ordered released (or, as in the case of non-qualifying offenses, is required to be released), then the court is authorized (“may “) only to direct that the examination be conducted on an outpatient basis or, under certain circumstances, that the defendant be confined in a hospital until the examination is completed (see CPL 730.20[2]); if the defendant has been committed to custody, then he or she must remain in custody for the examination, even if he or she must be taken to a hospital for purposes of conducting same (see id. § 730.20[3]). A defendant who has been ordered released, or, as in Wei Li’s case, was statutorily entitled to release (see CPL 510.10[3]; 530.20[1]), cannot be jailed because the court ordered a CPL article 730 examination. People v Warden, 2021 NY Slip Op 03867, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD-SUPPORT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WAS IN SUPREME COURT, NOT FAMILY COURT, PLAINTIFF HAD A RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE JUDICIARY LAW; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY HE WAS UNABLE TO WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, after noting plaintiff was entitled to counsel under Judiciary Law 35 (8) in this child-support contempt proceeding in Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s counsel was ineffective. Plaintiff testified he could not meet his child-support obligations because of medical problems, but counsel did not present any medical evidence:

The plaintiff was denied effective assistance of counsel in connection with that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to hold him in contempt for wilful violation of the 2013 order. Under Judiciary Law § 35(8), a person has the right to the assistance of counsel in any matter before the Supreme Court, under circumstances whereby, if such proceeding was pending in the Family Court, such court would be required, by section 262 of the Family Court Act, to appoint counsel, such as the matter here in which the defendant sought to hold the plaintiff in contempt for wilful violation of the 2013 [child-support] order and sought his incarceration (see Judiciary Law § 35[8]; Family Ct Act § 262). The standard for effective assistance of counsel in such cases is whether, viewed in its totality, there was meaningful representation … . Here, the plaintiff’s attorney failed to present any medical evidence, whether in the form of admissible medical records or testimony of medical witnesses, to support the plaintiff’s defense that his failure to pay child support in accordance with the 2013 order was not wilful, but rather due to his medical condition which rendered him unable to work. Winter v Winter, 2021 NY Slip Op 03865, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SIDEWALK BRIDGE PLAINTIFF WAS DISMANTLING; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUPPLIED WITH A HARNESS, THERE WAS NO PLACE TO ATTACH THE SAFETY LINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based on his fall from a sidewalk bridge he was dismantling. Although plaintiff had a harness, there was no place to attach the safety line:

Plaintiff testified that he was wearing a harness but that the sidewalk bridge did not have a lifeline to which he could attach the safety line, which was seven to nine feet long. The task at hand involved his breaking down the structure’s components and carrying them to the end of the sidewalk bridge run, which covered nearly a city block. The expert stated that if plaintiff’s movement was limited to nine feet with his lanyard attached to the sidewalk bridge, he could still have performed his job “as described.” However, he failed to explain further or indicate where on the bridge a tie-off would have been either practicable or safe, given the maximum range of the harness line. Gomez v Trinity Ctr. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03810, First Dept 6-15-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF A LADDER WHEN IT WOBBLED AND HE FELL; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, Plaintiff was standing at the top of a ladder when it wobbled and he fell:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his testimony that while installing a cover on a sprinkler in a ceiling, he fell to the ground and sustained injury when the unsecured ladder on which he was standing with one foot on the ladder’s top, and the other foot one rung below began to wobble and he lost his equilibrium … . …

… [T]here is no requirement that plaintiff identify exactly what caused the ladder to move, or his fall … . While defendants argue that different versions as to why the ladder wobbled preclude summary judgment, under any of the scenarios, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment because he was not supplied with adequate protection under the statute, which was the proximate cause of the accident … .

Given plaintiff’s undisputed testimony, any alleged misuse by him constitutes at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Hoxhaj v West 30th HL LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03811, First Dept 6-15-21

 

/ , , ,

THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS NURSING-HOME MALPRACTICE CASE, BUT THE JUDGE DID NOT FIRST DETERMINE PLAINTIFF HAD SOME LEVEL OF COGNITIVE AWARENESS; THE CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CRITERIA ARE THE SAME FOR MALPRACTICE AND FOR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2801-D; NEW DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the $2.5 million pain and suffering award in this nursing-home malpractice case because the jury was instructed on the elements of “conscious” pain and suffering, but the judge did not first determine plaintiff had some level of cognitive awareness. The suit alleged the nursing home’s failure to monitor plaintiff-resident’s blood sugar level led to brain injury and death. A new trial on damages was ordered. The First Department noted that the criteria for “conscious pain and suffering” damages is the same for malpractice and violation of Public Health Law 2801-d:

The court should not have allowed the jury to award damages for pain and suffering without first determining that the decedent “experienced some level of cognitive awareness following the injury”… . There is no legal basis for applying this rule in the general negligence/malpractice context but not in the context of a violation of PHL 2801-d. Although PHL 2801-d(4) provides that “[t]he remedies provided in this section are in addition to and cumulative with any other remedies available to a patient, . . . including tort causes of action, and may be granted regardless of whether such other remedies are available or are sought,” this language has been interpreted as authorizing a separate cause of action, not a separate category of damages … . Smith v Northern Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03818, First Dept 6-15-21

 

/ , ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the medical malpractice action against Dr. Drummond, a first-year resident, should have been dismissed because he did not exercise any independent medical judgement but merely followed the direction of his supervisors when medication was discontinued:

Defendants met their initial burden on the motion by presenting the affidavit of an expert who opined that, as a first-year resident, Dr. Drummond could not and did not make any medical decisions independently and that he properly wrote the discharge instruction to discontinue the medication only after discussing and confirming that decision with the appropriate supervisors, a practice that complied with the applicable standard of care … . Defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of Drs. Drummond and Bath, which established that Dr. Drummond consulted with Dr. Bath prior to decedent’s discharge and confirmed with him that the decision had been made to discontinue the medication. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Based on that conclusion, we likewise agree with defendants that the court erred in denying that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against Kaleida Health insofar as the complaint asserts a claim of vicarious liability based on the alleged conduct of Dr. Drummond … . Bieger v Kaleida Health Sys., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03772, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

/ , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT WAS ALLEGED, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM CONDUCTING A NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION (NPE) OF PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to a neuropsychological examination (NPE) of the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3121:

… [W]e agree with defendants that the preclusion order sought by plaintiff is not warranted inasmuch as the NPE is material and necessary to defend against plaintiff’s claims that he sustained head injuries and cognitive impairment ”’ . Here, plaintiff placed his mental and physical condition in controversy by alleging in the verified complaint, as amplified by the verified bills of particulars, that he injured, inter alia, his head, neck, spine, left wrist and left elbow and suffered “emotional and psychological pain . . . with related mental anguish, stress, and anxiety” as a result of the accident. Furthermore, defendants’ submissions in opposition to the motion established, inter alia, that plaintiff’s neurologist and psychologist had both ordered neuropsychological evaluations of plaintiff that had not been conducted, and that the requested NPE differs significantly from neurologic and neurosurgical examinations. In particular, defendants submitted an affidavit from the neuropsychologist who would conduct the NPE, who averred that he would utilize a different methodology, would administer a different battery of psychological tests, and would complete more detailed cognitive testing to determine the existence of any mood or behavioral deficits resulting from plaintiff’s alleged injuries, whereas the testing done by neurologists and neurosurgeons generally focuses on physical abnormalities and physical manifestations of those abnormalities. Pokorski v FDA Logistics, 2021 NY Slip Op 03770, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

/

DURING THE BATSON PROCEDURE, THE PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL EXPLANATION FOR A PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the race-neutral explanation for the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to a juror was not borne out by the record. A new trial was ordered. The prosecutor argued the prospective juror referred to police conduct as “harsh.” But the prospective juror was apparently commenting on general differences between living in Rochester and Brooklyn, not the police:

We conclude that reversal is required because the race-neutral reason proffered by the prosecutor and accepted by the court is not borne out by the record … . Although the record need not conclusively establish that a prospective juror actually harbors bias in order for a bias-based peremptory challenge to withstand review under Batson … , a proffered race-neutral reason cannot withstand a Batson objection where it is based on a statement that the prospective juror did not in fact make … . Here, the record does not support the prosecutor’s characterization of the prospective juror’s statements. We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial on count one of the indictment … . People v Coleman, 2021 NY Slip Op 03695, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

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