You are here: / INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS APPARENTLY INJURED BY HOT COALS LEFT AFTER A FIRE...

Search Results

/ ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS APPARENTLY INJURED BY HOT COALS LEFT AFTER A FIRE IN A COUNTY PARK; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against the county should not have been dismissed. Apparently infant plaintiff was injured in a county park by hot coals left after a fire:

“While a municipality is not an insurer of the safety of those who use its parks, it does have a duty to maintain its parks in a reasonably safe condition,’ which includes exercising ordinary care in providing an adequate degree of general supervision'” … . Here, the defendants, in moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Under the circumstances presented here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their summary judgment motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether they exercised adequate supervision of park visitors’ use of fires and disposal of hot coals … . S.A.P. v County of Westchester, 2020 NY Slip Op 04337, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

/ , , ,

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT FIRST STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN OR DROVE THROUGH THE STOP SIGN DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE EITHER WAY THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WAS VIOLATED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) was properly denied, but the motion to set aside the defense verdict in this intersection traffic accident case (CPLR 4404 (a)) should have been granted. Defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by proceeding into the intersection on a road controlled by a stop sign. Whether defendant first stopped at the stop sign or went through the stop sign doesn’t matter:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. The evidence established that the defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a) … . The defendant’s statutory duty to yield to the plaintiff continued even after the defendant entered the intersection. Such statutory violations constitute negligence as a matter of law and could not properly be disregarded by the jury … . Accordingly, the jury could not have returned a verdict that the defendant was not negligent on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Ramirez v Cruse, 2020 NY Slip Op 04334, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

/ , , ,

MOTION TO VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND COMPEL DISCOVERY PROPERLY DENIED; MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS AND BREACH OF A NON-COMPETITION CLAUSE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff’s motion to vacate the note of issue and compel additional discovery was properly denied because the criteria of 22 NYCRR 202.21 were not met; (2) the misappropriation of trade secrets cause of action re: customer lists was properly dismissed; (3) the misappropriation of trade secrets cause of action re: development of a laser should not have been dismissed; and (4), the breach of the non-competition clause cause of action should not have been dismissed:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for misappropriation of trade secrets are: (1) possession of a trade secret; and (2) use of that trade secret in breach of an agreement, confidential relationship or duty, or as a result of discovery by improper means (see Tri-Star Light. Corp. v Goldstein, 151 AD3d 1102, 1106). A trade secret includes any compilation of information which provides the company with an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it … . …

… [T]he plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant used its trade secrets in the manufacture of particular lasers … . …

A restrictive covenant will not be enforced if it is unreasonable in time, space, or scope  … . Thus, “a restrictive covenant will only be subject to specific enforcement to the extent that it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee” … . … [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the noncompetition clause should be partially enforced. A restrictive covenant may be partially enforced to the extent necessary to protect a company’s legitimate interests … . In particular, “restrictive covenants will be enforceable to the extent necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of trade secrets or confidential customer information” … .  Photonics Indus. Intl., Inc. v Xiaojie Zhao, 2020 NY Slip Op 04330, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) COVERAGE WAS GREATER THAN THE BODILY INJURY COVERAGE IN THE TORTFEASOR’S POLICY; SO THE SUM PROVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S POLICY WAS TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-insurer’s supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits were triggered in the traffic accident case. The (SUM) coverage under plaintiff’s policy was greater than the bodily injury coverage in the  tortfeasor’s policy. Plaintiff had settled for the tortfeasor’s policy limit and then sought to collect SUM benefits under his policy. Plaintiff’s insurer had determined the policy was not triggered and Supreme Court agreed:

“Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) was enacted to allow an insured to obtain the same level of protection for himself [or herself] and his [or her] passengers which he [or she] purchased to protect himself [or herself] against liability to others’ ” … . It is well settled that, “[u]nder Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2), an insured’s [SUM] coverage is triggered when the limit of the insured’s bodily injury liability coverage is greater than the same coverage in the tortfeasor’s policy”… . More particularly, when determining whether SUM coverage is triggered, “[t]he necessary analytical step . . . is to place the insured in the shoes of the tortfeasor and ask whether the insured would have greater bodily injury coverage under the circumstances than the tortfeasor actually has” … , which “requires a comparison of each policy’s bodily injury liability coverage as it in fact operates under the policy terms applicable to that particular coverage” … .

Here, a comparison of the two policies at issue, in light of the circumstances of this case, demonstrates that plaintiff would be afforded greater coverage under his policy than under the tortfeasor’s policy. The tortfeasor’s policy would have provided plaintiff with only $100,000 of coverage for bodily injury, whereas plaintiff’s policy would have provided him with up to $300,000 of coverage for bodily injury. Although plaintiff’s SUM benefits would be reduced by the amount paid to his wife under the policy’s $300,000 per accident maximum, he is still afforded more coverage under his policy than under the tortfeasor’s policy because the bodily injury limit for an accident in which two people are injured would be $200,000 under the tortfeasor’s policy, which is less than the coverage afforded by plaintiff’s policy. Consequently, the SUM provision of plaintiff’s policy was triggered … . Gross v Travelers Ins., 2020 NY Slip Op 04253, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

/ ,

THE DUPLICITY IN THE INDICTMENT WAS REMEDIED BY DETAILS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BY DETAILED TRIAL EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department held the prosecutor had remedied the duplicity in the indictment by providing information in a supplemental bill of particulars and a “trial indictment” after the motion to dismiss for duplicity was made, information corroborated by detailed trial evidence;

With respect to the counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree, after defendant made his motion, the prosecutor provided him with a supplemental bill of particulars that identified a precise date for each of the first 10 counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree. We conclude that dismissal of those counts is not required because the duplicity was “cured by reference to a bill of particulars supplementing the indictment” … . ,,,

With respect to the counts of rape in the first degree, although the duplicity of those counts was left unaddressed by the supplemental bill of particulars, before trial, the prosecutor provided defendant with a document styled as a “trial indictment,” which indicated that the People intended to prove a specific instance with respect to each of the counts on which defendant was ultimately convicted … . In addition, the People provided evidence of those specific instances of forced sexual intercourse at trial by offering the testimony of the victim … . The victim’s testimony was detailed, graphic, and corroborated by receipts, photographs, and emails that allowed the victim to pinpoint the precise dates on which each of those incidents of forced sexual intercourse occurred. “Because defendant was convicted only of those counts of [rape in the first degree] where pretrial notice of specific instances was given and where those specific instances were proved at trial” … , we conclude that dismissal of those counts as duplicitous was not required. People v Quiros, 2020 NY Slip Op 04279, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

/

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER, BURGLARY, MURDER CASE DUE TO DEFENDANT’S AGE AND MENTAL ILLNESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department found defendant’s sentence of 25 years to life in this manslaughter, burglary, murder case unduly harsh and severe due to his age and his mental illness. Sentence reduced to 15 years to life:

This Court “has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances, even though the sentence may be within the permissible statutory range,” and may exercise that power, “if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court” … . Defendant was 20 years old at the time of the offense. His criminal history consisted of only three incidents within the year leading up to the killing, all of which stemmed from the onset of defendant’s documented schizophrenia and all charges were dismissed as a result of defendant’s incapacity due to mental disease or defect. Here, at trial, both experts testified that, at the time of the killing, defendant was experiencing delusions. Indeed, the People’s own expert expressly recognized that defendant had a diminished capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his actions at the time and that “the action was a product of his symptoms of mental illness.” … [W]e modify the judgment by reducing the sentences of imprisonment imposed for manslaughter in the first degree under count one of the indictment and for burglary in the first degree under counts three and four of the indictment to determinate terms of 15 years, to be followed by the five years of postrelease supervision imposed by the court, and by reducing the sentence imposed for murder in the second degree under count two of the indictment to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 15 years to life. People v Gillie, 2020 NY Slip Op 04275, Third Dept 7-24-20

 

/

DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION UPON A VIOLATION OF PROBATION IN THIS FELONY DWI CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S COMPLETION OF THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD OF INCARCERATION ORIGINALLY IMPOSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined defendant was properly sentenced to imprisonment after a violation of probation in this felony DWI case, despite his completion of the original six-month sentence:

County Court sentenced defendant to six months of imprisonment and five years of probation on each count. Several years later, after serving the imprisonment portion of his sentence, defendant admitted that he had violated the conditions of his probation. He now appeals from a judgment that revoked his sentence of probation and sentenced him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment. * * *

Courts have held that, where a defendant is originally sentenced pursuant to section 60.21 and then later violates the terms of his or her probation or conditional discharge after fully serving his or her term of incarceration, the defendant cannot be sentenced to an additional term of incarceration without violating the rule against multiple punishments for the same offense … . Defendant thus contends that, inasmuch as he completed the imprisonment portion of his original sentence, the court was not authorized to impose an additional sentence of imprisonment upon his admission that he violated the conditions of his probation. We reject that contention.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, he was not originally sentenced to a term of imprisonment under Penal Law § 60.21 with respect to any of the three counts. That section provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]otwithstanding [section 60.01 (2) (d)], when a person is to be sentenced upon a conviction for a violation of [Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), (2-a) or (3)], the court may sentence such person to a period of imprisonment authorized by article seventy of this title and shall sentence such person to a period of probation or conditional discharge” (§ 60.21 …). The probation or conditional discharge imposed pursuant to section 60.21 is to run consecutively to any period of imprisonment imposed pursuant to article 70. Here, however, defendant was not sentenced to a period of imprisonment pursuant to Penal Law article 70. Rather, he was sentenced on each count to a traditional split sentence pursuant to Penal Law § 60.01 (2) (d), with the period of probation running concurrently with the period of imprisonment. Thus, Penal Law § 60.21 is inapplicable to this case and does not preclude the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment upon the revocation of probation … . People v Boldt, 2020 NY Slip Op 04284, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

/ , , ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO ARBITRATION OF A GRIEVANCE REQUIRED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WERE COMPLIED WITH IS A QUESTION FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was for the court, not the arbitrator, to determine whether the conditions precedent for arbitration were met in this action seeking General Municipal Law Section 207-a benefits for an injured firefighter:

… [T]he CBA [collective bargaining agreement] contains conditions precedent to arbitration within the provisions addressing the grievance procedure and … the court should have decided whether the conditions precedent had been met. “Questions concerning compliance with a contractual step-by-step grievance process have been recognized as matters of procedural arbitrability to be resolved by the arbitrators,” except in cases involving “a very narrow arbitration clause or a provision expressly making compliance with the time limitations a condition precedent to arbitration” … . Here, compliance with the requirements of steps one and two of the grievance procedure and the time limitations for serving a grievance were conditions precedent to arbitration. Under these circumstances, we conclude that “it was for the court, and not the arbitrator, to decide whether the grievance[] had been timely [served] and completed by the . . . employee at steps one and two of the grievance procedure” … . Therefore, we … remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on the issue whether the conditions precedent to arbitration were met and thereafter for a new determination on the petition to stay arbitration … . Matter of Village of Manlius (Town of Manlius Professional Firefighters Assn., Iaff Local #3316), 2020 NY Slip Op 04251, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

/

THE CITY MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR REVIEW AND REDACTION OF POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the city was not entitled to charge a fee for the review or redaction of police body-worn camera (BWC) footage under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL):

… [R]espondents may not charge petitioner a fee for the costs associated with their review or redaction of the BWC footage requested by petitioner … . We note that the Committee on Open Government has specifically opined that “if the document exists in electronic format and the agency has the authority and the ability to redact electronically, we believe it would be reasonable for the agency to provide the requested redacted copy at no charge” (Comm on Open Govt FOIL—AO—18904 [2012]). While “the advisory opinions issued by the Committee on Open Government are not binding on the courts . . . , an agency’s interpretation of the statutes it administers generally should be upheld if not unreasonable or irrational” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating that part of the judgment permitting respondents to charge petitioner a fee for the cost of reviewing and redacting the requested video footage. Matter of Forsyth v City of Rochester, 2020 NY Slip Op 04250, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

/ ,

42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SHERIFF AND UNDERSHERIFF IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES STEMMING FROM THE SUICIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT IN THE ERIE COUNTY JAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 42 USC 1983 causes of action against the sheriff and undersheriff in their official capacities, stemming from plaintiffs’ decedent’s suicide in the Erie County Jail, should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiffs that in state court they can assert a section 1983 cause of action against a sheriff or undersheriff in his or her official capacity. Until 1989, New York Constitution, article XIII, section 13 (a) stated that counties could not be made responsible for acts of sheriffs. Although that provision was removed via amendment in 1989, that amendment merely granted counties the ability to assume liability if the they chose to do so … . Erie County has not passed any legislation assuming such responsibility and, as a result, cannot be responsible for the acts of the Sheriff or Undersheriff … . We thus conclude that the Sheriff and the Undersheriff are the proper defendants for the section 1983 cause of action.

“The gravamen of the cause of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 is deprivation of property without due process of law. The essential elements of the cause of action are conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law, which deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured . . . by the Constitution or laws of the United States’ ” … . The Sheriff has a duty to “ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and [to] take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates’ ” … . Here, plaintiffs’ allegations that the Sheriff and Undersheriff failed to take measures to ensure the safety of the inmates from suicide are sufficient to state a viable cause of action under section 1983 … . Freeland v Erie County, 2020 NY Slip Op 04244 Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

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