You are here: / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S THEORY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE...

Search Results

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S THEORY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL LITERATURE, THE THEORY HAD AN OBJECTIVE BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AFTER A FRYE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence offered by plaintiff’s treating physician (Paget) as expert opinion should not have been precluded after a Frye hearing, despite the absence of medical literature on the topic. Plaintiff alleged a contrast agent was negligently injected into the tissue of her arm instead of a vein:

The plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure indicated that Paget was expected to testify that the defendants deviated from good and accepted medical practice in allowing gadolinium, a toxin, to leak into and remain inside the plaintiff’s arm in high concentration, which caused the plaintiff to develop injuries including a progressive fibrosing disease. … * * *

Although Paget did not rely upon medical literature unequivocally establishing that the administration of gadolinium into tissue has a causal link to the development of a systemic fibrosing disease in the absence of renal insufficiency, the plaintiff established that Paget’s theory “had an objective basis and was founded upon far more than theoretical speculation or a scientific hunch”… . The absence of medical literature directly on point pertains to the weight to be afforded to Paget’s testimony, but does not preclude its admissibility … . Farrell v Lichtenberger, 2021 NY Slip Op 03305, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IS TOO LOUD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the private nuisance cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendants’ air conditioning unit made too much noise:

The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: “(1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act” … . “[E]xcept for the issue of whether the plaintiff has the requisite property interest, each of the other elements is a question for the jury, unless the evidence is undisputed” … .

Here, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for private nuisance by alleging that the defendants’ air conditioning and condenser units generated a noise level exceeding that permitted by the Code of the Town of Hempstead … , which interfered with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his bedroom, garden, and patio, and diminished his property value … . Curry v Matranga, 2021 NY Slip Op 03304, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

/ ,

THE DIFFERING CRITERIA FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE AND NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAREFULLY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, carefully laid out the criteria for gender diiscrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation under the NYS Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The gender discriimination claims should have been dismissed, but the hostile work environment and retaliation claims properly survived summary judgment. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here and should be consulted for its explanation of the differing criteria under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. With respect to gender discrimination, the court wrote:

[Under the NYSHRL] a triable issue of fact regarding the falsity of the appellants’ proffered reasons for the employment action is not enough; there must be evidence “both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason” … . Here, the parties’ evidentiary submissions reveal no evidence that gender discrimination was the real reason for the challenged employment actions. …

… [A]n action alleging discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL “‘must be analyzed under both the familiar framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green (411 US 792 [1973]) and under the newer mixed motive framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion'” (Sanderson-Burgess v City of New York, 173 AD3d 1233, 1235 …). “‘Summary judgment dismissing a claim under the NYCHRL should be granted only if no jury could find [the] defendant liable under any of the evidentiary routes—McDonnell Douglas, mixed motive, direct evidence, or some combination thereof'” … . Here, the plaintiff … failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the conduct was a pretext to mask a discriminatory intent or was in part motivated by discrimination … . Bilitch v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03300, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

/ ,

FAILURE TO TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SETTLE THE ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERED THE ACTION ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was abandoned because no steps were taken to settle the order:

“Proposed orders . . . with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]). “Failure to submit the order . . . timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48[b]). These provisions are not applicable where the decision does not explicitly direct that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature (see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364). However, the direction to “settle” order “ordinarily entails more complicated relief,” and therefore “contemplates notice to the opponent so that both parties may either agree on a draft or prepare counter proposals to be settled before the court” (id. at 367 …). Here, Nationstar failed to timely settle the order pursuant to the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), and did not show good cause for its failure to do so … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to deem, as abandoned, Nationstar’s motion. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Yogev, 2021 NY Slip Op 03297, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

/ , ,

THE GUARANTEES QUALIFED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY AND SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; ONLY PURELY LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in lieu of complaint based upon guarantees which met the definition of instruments for the payment of money only. The court noted that two arguments raised for the first time on appeal (documents not qualified as business records and failure to include a payment schedule) could not be considered because they were not purely legal arguments. A third argument, which was purely legal, was considered:

Defendants’ contention that the guaranties do not qualify as instruments for the payment of money only, as required by CPLR 3213, because they guarantee performance as well as payment and reference must be made to documents outside the guaranties to determine if the debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) conditions have been met, is unavailing. Although this argument was raised for the first time on appeal, since these are “legal issues appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided” if they had been raised earlier, we will address the argument … .

The guaranty at issue in 27 West 72nd St. qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only because it guarantees only payment and not performance. … [T]he … operative provision of the guaranty says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment of the Guaranteed Obligations.”

The guaranty at issue in 31 East 28th St. also qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only. Although it says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of the Guaranteed Obligations as and when due and payable,” the mere addition of the words “and performance” does not necessarily remove the guaranty from the category of instruments for the payment of money only, particularly when the sentence ends with “as and when due and payable.”  27 W. 72nd St. Note Buyer LLC v Terzi, 2021 NY Slip Op 03364, First Dept 5-27-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CASE COULD BE PRESENTED WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT UNAVAILABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE A COLLEAGUE WAS IN COURT REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s speedy trial motion should have been granted. The court noted the issue is the prosecution’s readiness for trial, not whether defense counsel is available:

The court erred, firstly, in excluding 93 days of pre-readiness delay in which the prosecution failed to present its case to the grand jury. “[T]he obligation to obtain a proper accusatory instrument is the prosecutor’s alone” … , making “the period prior to the People’s obtaining an indictment [] chargeable to them, absent the applicability of some exclusion” … . …

… [T]he prosecutor did not and could not establish its inability to proceed with the case since the complainant was not necessary to present its case to the grand jury. The charges against defendant were for leaving the scene of the accident without reporting it. The complainant remembered nothing of the accident, let alone defendant’s actions in its aftermath, professing to this lack of memory on the very day of the accident. …

The court also erred in excluding 83 days of post-readiness delay that was due to the prosecutor’s improper declaration that its readiness was “moot” because lead defense counsel was on trial. While acknowledging that a colleague of defense counsel was present, the court nonetheless erroneously concluded that “the People’s state of readiness is irrelevant where counsel is unavailable,” misconstruing the law as to what constitutes “unavailability.” …

Because a colleague of defense counsel stood up on the case on July 8, 2015, as the court itself acknowledged, defendant was not without representation on the basis that “counsel was unavailable.” People v Alvarez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03286, First Dept 5-25-21

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the waiver of defendant’s right to counsel was invalid and the evidence of criminal mischief and auto stripping was legally insufficient, and the convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, because the record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … . “The critical consideration is defendant’s knowledge at the point in time when he first waived his right to counsel”; the court’s subsequent warnings about sentencing “were incapable of retrospectively ‘curing’ the . . . court’s error” … . Moreover, the court “improperly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se without first conducting a searching inquiry regarding defendant’s mental capacity to waive counsel” … , in light of his history of mental illness, as well as his statement, in response to the court’s reference to the “tremendous pitfalls of representing yourself,” that “[n]one of that has been explained,” even after the court had warned him of a number of such risks.

Defendant’s conviction of third-degree criminal mischief as to one of the vehicles he damaged (count four), and his conviction of first-degree auto stripping, were unsupported by legally sufficient evidence (a claim we review in the interest of justice), and were also against the weight of the evidence … . The People failed to establish that particular charge of criminal mischief because the evidence did not show that “the reasonable cost of repairing the damaged property” … . Such costs “may not be established by hearsay”… . The People relied on a nonexpert witness who was not the owner of the vehicle and did not pay for the repairs, but testified that he looked at a receipt and that the repair costs were $600 … , and the People do not invoke any exception to the hearsay rule. In the absence of admissible evidence as to the repair costs for that vehicle, the People also failed to establish that the aggregate damage to all the vehicles exceeded $3,000, the minimum value for first-degree auto stripping … . People v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03288, First Dept 5-25-21

 

/ ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED INFLATION OF THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS PURCHASED BY PLAINTIFF; AND THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL WARRANTIES WHICH DID NOT DUPLICATE THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint adequately alleged fraud (inflating the value of defendants’ business which was purchased by plaintiff) and breach of contract:

… [T]he key … element of a claim for fraudulent concealment — duty to disclose — is met here, given the hidden nature of the fraud, which turned on falsified records and bribed auditors, and the practical impossibility of discovering the fraud through ordinary diligence … .

Defendants’ alleged deception also breached numerous warranties set forth in the governing stock purchase agreement, including that … financial statements were materially complete and correct, that its [earning] projections were reasonable and made in good faith, that it had no material undisclosed liabilities, and that it conducted its business in compliance with applicable law. Nevertheless, “[a] warranty is not a promise of performance, but a statement of present fact. Accordingly, a fraud claim can be based on a breach of contractual warranties notwithstanding the existence of a breach of contract claim” … . Thus, the fraud claim does not duplicate the contract claim … . VXI Lux Holdco, S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03294, First Dept 5-25-21

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTARY STAMP WAS MISSING FROM THE SCANNED MORTGAGE IN THE NYC REGISTER, PLAINTIFF BANK DEMONSTRATED THE MORTGAGE WAS PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGED WHEN DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE MORTGAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive concurrence, determined defendant bank demonstrated the mortgage was properly recorded in the NYC Register and, therefore, plaintiff’s interest the property was subordinate to defendant’s mortgage:

The parties do not dispute that the mortgage, as reflected in the records of the Office of the New York City Register, did not bear a notary stamp or any indication that the mortgage was properly acknowledged as required by Real Property Law §§ 291, 298, 309-a(1), and 333(2). However, the bank proffered evidence establishing that the mortgage was properly acknowledged when submitted for recording. This evidence included the original inked mortgage containing the notary public’s information; an affidavit from the notary who affixed her notary stamp at the time; an affidavit from the title company that submitted the mortgage for recording, and an expert affidavit and report by a forensic document examiner in which he concluded that the Register’s scanner could have caused the notary stamp to disappear from the imaged mortgage. Plaintiff has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the acknowledgment was defective … . Thus, the bank demonstrated that the mortgage was “entitled to be recorded . . . and is considered recorded from the time of [ ] delivery [to the Office of the New York City Register]” (Real Property Law § 317).

Given that the mortgage was duly acknowledged, delivered and actually recorded, plaintiff is deemed to have constructive notice of it … . 80P2L LLC v U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 03275, First Dept 5-25-21

 

/ , ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE CORRECT STANDARD TO APPLY TO THE CANINE SNIFF OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON WAS REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT PROBABLE CAUSE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the canine sniff after a traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. The concurrence argued the court could not reach the proper standard for the canine sniff because the motion court did not rule on it. The dissent argued the probable cause standard should apply:

Defendant correctly asserts that the canine’s contact sniff of his person intruded upon his personal privacy as secured under both the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and article 1, § 12 of the NY Constitution … . The question presented is whether the search ran afoul of either constitutional provision and what standard applies to make that assessment — an issue of first impression for this Court.

Considering the context of a vehicle traffic stop and how events unfolded, we conclude that a reasonable suspicion standard should apply, not one of probable cause … . A canine sniff is a minimal intrusion compared to a full-blown search of a person, intended only to detect the possession of narcotics … . Without prompting from [officer] Bracco, the canine twice was “in odor” of its own accord, providing a reasonable and articulable basis for Bracco to suspect that defendant possessed narcotics on his person. Given the necessity for prompt action, it was not unreasonable for Bracco to allow the canine to approach defendant. There was contact between the canine and defendant’s person, but the record suggests that contact was brief and the canine quickly alerted. In these circumstances, we conclude that the search was valid and the suppression motion properly denied. People v Butler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03222, Third Dept 5-20-21

 

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