You are here: / PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN THROWN FROM A RENTED MOPED;...

Search Results

/ , , , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN THROWN FROM A RENTED MOPED; THE RENTAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; HOWEVER, THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL-DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISTINCT AND ADDRESS DIFFERENT INJURIES; THE WINNING ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormack, determined the plaintiffs in this wrongful death action, who are the parents of plaintiffs’ decedent and the administrators of decedent’s estate, are not bound by the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate. The decedent rented an electric moped from defendant Ravel by downloading an app with an arbitration clause. Decedent was killed when he was thrown from the moped and struck by a car. All agreed that the negligence causes of action were subject to the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs successfully argued the wrongful death action is distinct from the negligence actions and is not subject to the arbitration clause. The winning argument was first raised on appeal. The court heard the appeal because it “present[ed] a pure question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture” …:

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs, individually, did not enter into an agreement with Revel to arbitrate. However, the plaintiffs are the administrators of the decedent’s estate, and the causes of action arise from the same incident that caused the decedent’s death. The issue, therefore, turns on the nature of wrongful death causes of action and whether they are derivative of negligence causes of action or independent of negligence causes of action. * * *

The law of this State is clear that a wrongful death cause of action is a separate and distinct cause of action to redress the injuries suffered by a decedent’s distributees as a result of the decedent’s death. “‘A cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death is a property right belonging solely to the distributees of the decedent and vests in them at the decedent’s death'” … . This is true even where no cause of action alleging negligence exists. * * * … [T]his Court [has] determined that a cause of action alleging wrongful death was not derivative of a negligence cause of action, but [is] an independent cause of action vested in the distributees. “… [T]he surviving personal injury action and the wrongful death cause of action … are different in many respects. The two causes of action exist in order to protect the rights of different classes of persons, and the measure of damages is entirely different” … . “Wrongful death actions are brought not to compensate the decedent or his [or her] estate for the pain and suffering attendant to the injury, but rather to recover, on behalf of decedent’s distributees, the pecuniary value of the decedent’s life” … . Further, the different causes of action accrue at different times. A negligence cause of action accrues at the time of the injury, while a wrongful death cause of action does not accrue until the decedent’s death, which can occur after the injury is sustained … . Marinos v Brahaj, 2025 NY Slip Op 03561, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Negligence and wrongful death causes of action are distinct and address different injuries. Here an arbitration clause in a moped rental contract executed to by plaintiffs’ decedent was deemed to apply to the negligence causes of action stemming from the moped accident, but not to the related wrongful death cause of action.​

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an example of when an issue raised for the first time on appeal will be considered by the appellate court.

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the ninety-day CPLR 3216 demand to file a note of issue required dismissal of the medical malpractice action. The law-office-failure excuse was vague and conclusory and plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action:

“Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand . . . pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period” … . Here, the plaintiff did neither.

“In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates ‘a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action'” … . “‘Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a justifiable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a claim of law office failure should be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue'” … . Here, the vague and conclusory claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiff’s attorney did not constitute a justifiable excuse … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof from a medical expert demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Kresberg v Kerr, 2025 NY Slip Op 03559, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a vague and conclusory allegation of law-office-failure was not a reasonable excuse for failure to respond to the ninety-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

/ , ,

THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because a proper foundation for the admissibility of the records relied upon by the referee was not provided by the accompanying affidavit:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, in computing the amount due on the mortgage loan, the referee relied upon the affidavit of Frank Rosas, a vice president of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), the servicer of the mortgage loan. Rosas stated in his affidavit that Nationstar’s records pertaining to the mortgage loan included records of PHH Mortgage, a prior servicer. However, Rosas did not state when Nationstar began servicing the loan, did not state that “[he] was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures” of PHH Mortgage … , and did not “establish that the records provided by [PHH Mortgage] were incorporated into [Nationstar’s] own records and routinely relied upon by [Nationstar] in its own business” … . Thus, Rosas’s affidavit failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a) … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Coxall, 2025 NY Slip Op 03557, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: An affiant’s failure to lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of business records in a foreclosure action results in reversal.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED HIM; WHETHER THE DINER DEFENDANTS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH AN INTERROGATORY ON THE SCOPE-OF-EMPLOYMENT QUESTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and ordering a new trial, held the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the security guard (Vetell) who assaulted plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the assault. Apparently plaintiff left the defendant diner to get money at an ATM to pay the bill. When he retuned to the diner, the security guard knocked him to the ground and choked him:

… Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants’ counsel’s request to ask the jury to determine whether Vetell was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the plaintiff. The interrogatories that were given to the jury made it possible for the jury to find the appellants liable for Vetell’s acts based only on his being a special employee without determining that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the plaintiff. Since a determination that Vetell was acting within the scope of his employment is a necessary element to render the appellants vicariously liable for his acts, the court should have added the requested interrogatory to the verdict sheet … . Eaton v Fiotos, 2025 NY Slip Op 03553, Second Dept 6-10-25

Practice Point: Whether an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of an employee depends upon whether the employee’s conduct was within the scope of employment. Here the failure to so instruct the jury required a new trial.​

 

/ ,

THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE THE MATTER BEFORE MOVING TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS; THE FAILURE TO CONFERENCE THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer or compel compliance with discovery demands should not have been denied on the ground plaintiff failed to first conference the matter as required by the court’s Part Rules:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to first conference the matter with the court in accordance with its Part Rules. The court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval … . Reyes v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03545, First Dept 6-10-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s failure to comply with Supreme Court’s Part Rule requiring a conference before moving to compel discovery was not a valid ground for denying the motion. A court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval.

 

/ ,

ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AFTER HE RESPONDED “NO SIR.” WHEN ASKED IF HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, vacating his plea, and granting part of the suppression motion, over a partial dissent, determined that all the statements defendant made after he responded “No sir” when asked if he was willing to answer questions should have been suppressed. The dissent argued statements made before defendant was read his Miranda rights should also be suppressed:

Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to suppress his post-Miranda statements inasmuch as they were made after he invoked his right to remain silent by answering “No, sir” when asked if he would be willing to answer questions after being advised of his Miranda rights. We agree. ” ‘[I]n order to terminate questioning, the assertion by a defendant of [the] right to remain silent must be unequivocal and unqualified’ ” … . Whether a defendant’s “request was ‘unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request[,] including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant’ ” … . Here, we conclude that defendant clearly communicated a desire to cease all questioning indefinitely when he responded “No, sir” to the verbal and written inquiries about whether he was willing to answer questions … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to suppress the holding cell statements, which were also made after defendant unequivocally and unqualifiedly asserted his right to remain silent. Contrary to the People’s assertion that the statements were made spontaneously at a time when the detective was seeking “pedigree information,” we conclude that the People did not establish that the detective’s questions “were reasonably related to the police’s administrative concerns” rather than “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation” … . People v Sullivan, 2025 NY Slip Op 03494, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is asked whether he is willing to answer questions and answers “no,” any subsequent statements must be suppressed.​

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FOUND IN HIS GIRLFRIEND’S APARTMENT WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS AND PRAPHERNALIA WAS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s bench-trial conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminally using drug paraphernalia, determined the finding that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia located in his girlfriend’s apartment was against the weight of the evidence. Note that the Fourth Department concluded there was legally sufficient evidence of constructive possession:

… “[W]here there is no evidence that the defendant actually possessed the controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, the People are required to establish that the defendant exercised dominion or control over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found” … . The People may establish such constructive possession by circumstantial evidence … , “but a defendant’s mere presence in the area in which the contraband is discovered is insufficient to establish constructive possession” … .

Here, while the People adduced evidence establishing that defendant had a key to the apartment and stayed there “from time to time,” defendant was not a party to the lease and a search of the premises did not reveal anything to “specifically connect[ ] defendant to the places where the contraband was ultimately found” … . Moreover, none of the contraband was in plain view … and, thus, no statutory presumption of defendant’s knowing possession applied … .

We conclude that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that defendant “exercised dominion or control over the [contraband] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 03454, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of when evidence is legally sufficient to withstand a motion for a trial order of dismissal but a finding based on that same evidence is deemed “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE HE SIGNED WAS INVALID DUE TO MUTUAL MISTAKE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF LUMBAR DISC INJURIES AND LEFT HIP DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE; IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS “NOT FAIRLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE;” CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact the validity of the release he signed in this traffic accident case:

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that there was a mutual mistake with respect to the extent of the injuries that the plaintiff sustained must establish that, at the time the release was executed, “the parties were under ‘[a] mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of [a] presently existing injury’ ” … . “[I]n resolving claims of mutual mistake as to injury at the time of release, there has been delineated a sharp distinction between injuries unknown to the parties and mistake as to the consequence of a known injury” … . “A mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release” … , whereas “[i]f the injury is known, and the mistake . . . is merely as to the consequence, future course, or sequelae of [the] known injury, then the release will stand” … . “Even where a releasor has knowledge of the causative trauma, . . . there must be actual knowledge of the injury. Knowledge of injury to an area of the body cannot cover injury of a different type and gravity” … . Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of mutual mistake inasmuch as, despite the fact that at the time the release was signed plaintiff had pain in the cervical spine and left hip and a diagnosis of a cervical strain, plaintiff alleged that neither party was aware of plaintiff’s lumbar disc injuries or left hip degenerative joint disease at that time … .

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that it was not fairly and knowingly entered into must establish that “the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, [or that] it was not ‘fairly and knowingly’ made” … . Again accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that, in the complaint and his affidavit in opposition to the motion, he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of whether the release was fairly and knowingly entered into inasmuch as plaintiff averred in his affidavit in opposition to the motion that, inter alia, he signed the release a short time after the accident occurred, he is unable to fluently read, understand or speak English, he did not understand the release, at the time he signed the release he did not have an attorney, he was not provided with an interpretation of the release, and he needed money for a vehicle in order to attend medical appointments … . Pastrana-Ortiz v Wemple, 2025 NY Slip Op 03425, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for explanations of the criteria for invalidating a release (1) due to fraud, (2) due to mutual mistake, and (3) because it was “not fairly and knowingly made.”

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; MONTHS LATER THE PEOPLE INDICTED THE DEFENDANT ON A MURDER CHARGE, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; COUNTY COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S CPL 40.40 MOTION TO DISMISS THE MURDER INDICTMENT; THERE WAS A STRONG, COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the murder indictment (CPL 40.40(2)), determined that the criminal possession of a weapon charges to which defendant pled guilty were not a barrier to a subsequent murder charge based on the same underlying facts. There was a comprehensive dissent:

… [O]n or about November 20, 2021, the 90-year-old victim was shot and killed in her home. When police officers arrived at the scene, defendant, the victim’s granddaughter, was found in the house and appeared to be in distress. Defendant gave the officers conflicting accounts of what had happened to her grandmother but consistently stated that there were guns in the house that defendant had been playing with. A pistol and a revolver were recovered from the home. The People presented evidence to a grand jury relating to the two firearms. The evidence included witness testimony from various police officers about the crime scene, including that the victim appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and about statements made to them by defendant. Defendant was indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b [1]), and she pleaded guilty to both counts. * * *

“CPL 40.40 prohibits a separate prosecution of joinable offenses that arise out of the same transaction and involve different and distinct elements under circumstances wherein no violation of the double jeopardy principle can validly be maintained but the equities nevertheless seem to preclude separate prosecutions” … . Under CPL 40.40 (1), “[w]here two or more offenses are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction, . . . such person may not, under circumstances prescribed in this section, be separately prosecuted for such offenses.” A “criminal transaction” is defined as “conduct which establishes at least one offense, and which is comprised of two or more or a group of acts either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” (CPL 40.10 [2]). “When (a) one of two or more joinable offenses [that are joinable in a single accusatory instrument against a person by reason of being based upon the same criminal transaction] is charged in an accusatory instrument, and (b) another is not charged therein, or in any other accusatory instrument filed in the same court, despite possession by the [P]eople of evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction of the defendant for such uncharged offense, and (c) either a trial of the existing accusatory instrument is commenced or the action thereon is disposed of by a plea of guilty, any subsequent prosecution for the uncharged offense is thereby barred” (CPL 40.40 [2] …). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the conduct related to possession of the firearms and that related to the murder involved separate and distinct criminal acts that were not part of the same criminal transaction … . Thus, the murder count was properly charged on a separate accusatory instrument and the People did not violate CPL 40.40.

From the dissent:

… [P]rosecution of the murder charge is barred by CPL 40.40 (2) because it is joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (a) with the criminal possession of a firearm offenses charged in the prior indictment, and the People possessed legally sufficient evidence to support a murder conviction against defendant when she pleaded guilty to the firearm offenses. Where, as here, “the evidence against a person is in the prosecutor’s hands, [they] may not—as a player in a game of chance—deal out indictments one at a time” … . People v Harris, 2025 NY Slip Op 03419, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and was subsequently indicted for murder based on the same facts. The majority upheld the denial of the CPL 40.40(2) motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding the possession-of-a-weapon and murder charges were not part of the same criminal transaction. There was a strong dissent.

 

/ , ,

THE ERRONEOUS “LOSS OF CHANCE” JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED REVERSAL; THE CHARGE USED THE PHRASES “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR” AND “SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY” WHEN THE CORRECT PHRASE IS “SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBILITY” IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER A BETTER OUTCOME WAS DENIED DUE TO A DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reinstating the complaint and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice action, determined the “loss of chance” jury instruction was erroneous and required reversal:

As this Court has held since at least 2011, a “loss of chance instruction” is “entirely appropriate for . . . omission theories” in medical malpractice actions … . Although the Pattern Jury Instructions did not include a loss of chance pattern charge until 2023, i.e., after the second trial in this matter took place in December 2022, this Court had already issued numerous decisions prior to December 2022 indicating that “the loss of chance theory of causation . . . requires only that a plaintiff ‘present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care’ ” … .

Here, the court instructed the jury that, in order for plaintiff to recover under a loss of chance theory, it was plaintiff’s burden to establish that the act or omission alleged was a “substantial factor in bringing about the death.” The court also instructed the jury that, if it should find that “there was a substantial probability that the decedent . . . would have survived . . . if he had received proper treatment,” then it could find that defendants’ alleged negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing his death … .

… [T]he charge, as given, did not ” ‘adequately convey[ ] the sum and substance of the applicable law’ ” to the jury … . The primary issue at trial was whether defendants deviated from accepted standards of care in failing to timely treat decedent. Inasmuch as the “court did not adequately charge the jury concerning” the appropriate standard to determine that issue, we conclude that “the court’s failure to define [the correct] standard for the jury” cannot be considered harmless under the circumstances of this case … . Wright v Stephens, 2025 NY Slip Op 03416, Fourth Dept 6-7-25

Practice Point: The “loss of chance” medical malpractice jury instruction requires that plaintiff show there was a “substantial possibility” that a deviation from the standard of care precluded a better outcome. Here the judge used the phrase “substantial probability,” requiring reversal.

 

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