You are here: / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ‘RECKLESS DISREGARD’ STANDARD...

Search Results

/ , , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ‘RECKLESS DISREGARD’ STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this police-car traffic accident case should not have been granted. The Second Department held there was a question of fact whether the police officer was an “authorized emergency vehicle” triggering the “reckless disregard” standard of care:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when a vehicle she was operating collided with a police vehicle operated by the defendant Moira T. Larmour, a police officer. According to Larmour’s deposition testimony, the collision occurred when Larmour, who had been traveling west, made an “exaggerated u-turn” in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop of an unrelated vehicle for an allegedly expired inspection sticker and accelerated her vehicle, which spun on wet pavement and came into contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle, which was traveling east. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 qualifiedly exempts drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an “emergency operation” … . An “emergency operation” is defined under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b as, among other things, pursuing an “actual or suspected violator of the law.” Those privileges set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 include passing through red lights and stop signs, exceeding the speed limit, and disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions … . However, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), “[t]he foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his [or her] reckless disregard for the safety of others.” This is commonly referred to as the reckless disregard standard of care, which requires a plaintiff to establish that a police officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others in order to impose civil liability upon that officer … . Anderson v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2020 NY Slip Op 01894, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the defendant City’s issuing permits allowing defendant CAB to convert property from manufacturing to retail. Plaintiff operated a grocery store 450 feet from CAB’s property. The Second Department held proximity was not enough to confer standing on plaintiff:

“In land use matters, . . . [the plaintiff] must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” … . “An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury” … . “However, this does not entitle the property owner to judicial review in every instance” … . “Rather, in addition to establishing that the effect of the proposed change is different from that suffered by the public generally, the [property owner] must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects” … . Thus, “even where [the property owner’s] premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular [property owner] itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged standing on the basis of proximity, issues and interests within the zone of interests, and adverse impacts. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to commence this action. The plaintiff failed to allege any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . 159-MP Corp. v CAB Bedford, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

/

SCHOOL BUS DRIVER ALLEGEDLY GESTURED TO PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A TURN AND PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS THEN STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the school bus driver gestured to plaintiff to make a turn and plaintiff’s car was then struck by another car (driven by defendant Mallon) going through the intersection:

“When one driver chooses to gratuitously signal to another person, indicating that it is safe to proceed or that the signaling driver will yield the right-of-way, the signaling driver assumes a duty to do so reasonably under the circumstances” … . Here, the School District failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not rely on the bus driver’s gesture that it was safe for the plaintiff to make his left turn … . The School District also failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s alleged negligent conduct in operating Mallon’s vehicle constituted an intervening and superseding act which broke the causal nexus between the bus driver’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries … . Pittman v Ball, 2020 NY Slip Op 01944, Second Dept 3-18-20

​

/

THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO CONFLICTING MEDICAL OPINIONS, HERE DEALING WITH WEANING CLAIMANT FROM OPIOID PAIN KILLERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board has the authority to chose between two conflicting medical opinions. Here claimant had significant pain was was taking high doses of opioids. The independent medical examiner (IME) had one opinion about how the claimant should be weaned from the opioids and claimant’s own physician had a different opinion. The Board sided with the IME:

Although claimant’s physician and the IME gave differing opinions regarding the advisability of weaning claimant from his opiate medications, as well as the manner in which it should be accomplished, the Board is vested with the authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions … . Thus, the Board could choose to credit the opinion of the IME, which was in accordance with the applicable guidelines, over that of claimant’s treating physician. Therefore, inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we find no reason to disturb it … . Matter of Forte v Muccini, 2020 NY Slip Op 01881, Third Dept 3-16-20

 

/

SPECULATIVE MEDICAL OPINION DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING CLAIMANT’S PRIOR EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED MESOTHELIOMA, DESPITE EVIDENCE OF EXPOSURE AT THE PRIOR EMPLOYER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly found that claimant’s mesothelioma was due to asbestos exposure at Kodak, even though claimant was exposed to asbestos in his prior employment at International Paper. Kodak unsuccessfully sought apportionment of the liability with International Paper. Claimant’s employment at International Paper ended in 1967 and claimant worked at Kodak from 1967 to 1985. He was diagnosed in 2013:

… Workers’ Compensation Law § 44 states that, when a worker’s disability due to an occupational disease is established and benefits are awarded, “[t]he total compensation due shall be recoverable from the employer who last employed the employee in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due and in which it was contracted. If, however, such disease . . . was contracted while such employee was in the employment of a prior employer, the employer who is made liable for the total compensation . . . may appeal to the [B]oard for an apportionment of such compensation among the several employers who since the contraction of such disease shall have employed such employee in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due” … . “Importantly, liability under this provision is premised upon employment at the time of or following the contraction of the compensable occupational disease, not upon the disablement that ensues” …  The determination of when an employee contracted the disease, which refers to “when the disease process begins, as evidenced by symptoms, diagnosis or other medical evidence that shows [that the] disease process must have existed” … , is a question of fact to be determined by the Board, which will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . * * *

While the Board recognized that there may be a delay of up to 50 years between exposure to asbestos and a mesothelioma diagnosis, it correctly found that the medical opinions that decedent’s prior employment contributed to his condition were speculative and insufficient … . Matter of Gimber v Eastman Kodak Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 01875, Third Dept 3-16-20

 

/

CLAIMANT WAS WRONGFULLY TERMINATED AFTER TELLING HIS BOSS HE WAS GOING TO FILE A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM, A VIOLATION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 120 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was terminated because he told the executive manager he would be filing a workers’ compensation claim and taking time off after a slip and fall injury, a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law section 120:

“Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee who has filed or who has attempted to file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits by discharging him or her” … . In enacting this statute, “the Legislature intended ‘to insure that a claimant [could] exercise his [or her] rights under the [Workers’] Compensation Law . . . without fear that doing so [might] endanger the continuity of [his or her] employment'” … . “The burden of proving a retaliatory discharge in violation of the statute lies with the claimant, who must demonstrate a causal nexus between the claimant’s activities in obtaining compensation and the employer’s conduct against him or her” … . With regard to “questions of fact and factual inferences to be drawn therefrom, . . . a decision of the [B]oard is conclusive upon the courts if supported by substantial evidence” … . Matter of Markey v Autosaver Ford, 2020 NY Slip Op 01876, Third Dept 3-16-20

 

/

SECURITIES TRADER IS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, a securities trader who worked for Quad Capital, LLC, was an employee entitled to unemployment benefits:

The record establishes that claimant submitted a resume and was interviewed by a managing partner at Quad Capital. After certain criteria, such as a trading license, fingerprints and background check were completed, claimant entered into an Ordinary Member Agreement and was given a trader handbook. The record also establishes that, despite being designated by the contract as a member of the limited liability company, claimant did not make a monetary investment in the company, was paid based upon the net profit only from his portfolio, did not have any managerial duties, did not make any financial or managerial decisions and was not liable for any losses from the company — unlike managing members of Quad Capital. Further, claimant had regularly-scheduled work hours in Quad Capital’s office and was required to notify his manager if he would be absent. Claimant was expected to attend morning meetings, his work was regularly reviewed and monitored by a manger and he was subject to a dress code for which a fine would be imposed if violated. Matter of Giampa (Quad Capital, LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 01877, Third Dept 3-16-20

 

/

THE CARRIER’S FAILURE TO INDICATE WHEN IT OBJECTED TO THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE JUSTIFIED THE DENIAL OF THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied the carrier’s application for review because question 15 on the application form did not indicate when the relevant objection to the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) was made:

When the carrier filed its application for Board review … , question number 15 on that form, as well as the accompanying instructions in effect at that time, requested that it “[s]pecify the objection or exception interposed to the ruling and when the objection or exception was interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii).” In response to question number 15, the carrier stated, “Please note the carrier’s objection to not finding a transfer of liability to the Special Funds Conservation Committee pursuant to [Workers’ Compensation Law §] 25-a.” The Board found that the carrier’s response was incomplete because there were “several hearings [that] had taken place prior to the hearing [on] July 3, 2018,” and the carrier’s response to question number 15 did “not include the date of the hearing at which the exception to the WCLJ’s ruling was interposed, as required.” Both the regulation itself and the instructions in effect at the time that the carrier filed its application for Board review unambiguously required the carrier to “specify the objection or exception that was interposed to the [WCLJ’s] ruling, and when the objection or exception was interposed” … . As such, a complete response to question number 15 required the carrier to specify the nature of its objections or exceptions and indicate when such objections or exceptions were interposed. Although the carrier satisfied the first prong of the regulation by articulating specific objections to the WCLJ’s rulings, it failed to satisfy the temporal element of the regulation by indicating when such objections were made. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented here, in which the carrier failed to provide the requisite temporal element in its response to question number 15, we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the carrier’s application for Board review … . Matter of Barrera v Corinthian Cast Stone, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01880, Third Dept 3-16-20

Similar issue and result in Matter of Currie v Rist Transp. Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 01874, Third Dept 3-16-20

Similar issue and result in Matter of Perry v All Am. Sch. Bus Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01869, Third Dept 3-16-20

/ , ,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE DWI ARREST EVEN THOUGH NO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED; BETTER PRACTICE WOULD BE FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO PLACE THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S GUILT ON THE RECORD AT THE TIME OF AN ALFORD PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s DWI conviction by guilty plea, determined the waiver of appeal was insufficient. The Third Department noted that the better practice would have been to place the evidence of defendant’s guilt on the record at the time of the Alford plea, and found the arresting officer had probable cause without conducting field sobriety tests. With regard to the waiver of appeal, the court wrote:

During the brief colloquy with defendant, County Court did not sufficiently distinguish the waiver of the right to appeal from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting by virtue of his guilty plea, and the record does not reflect that defendant executed a written waiver. Additionally, in response to County Court’s inquiry regarding defendant’s willingness to waive his right to appeal, defendant replied, “Yes, if that’s what I gotta do, yes. If that’s what you’re making me do, I’ll do it.” Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. People v Crandall, 2020 NY Slip Op 01857, Third Dept 3-16-20

 

/

CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s failure to comply with the formatting requirements supported the denial of claimant’s application for Board review:

The Board’s instructions for the RB-89 form regarding question number 13 required that claimant specify the date and document ID numbers of “the transcripts, documents, reports, exhibits, and other evidence in the Board’s file that are relevant to the issues and grounds being raised for review.” In response, claimant answered, “[a]ll hearings, transcripts and documents in [the Board] file are pertinent to the outstanding issue.” By merely referencing the entire Board case file in response to question number 13, claimant failed to comply with the prescribed formatting and completion requirements … . Accordingly, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant’s application for Board review, and its decision will not be disturbed … . Matter of Hirschbeck v Office of the Commr. of Major League Baseball, 2020 NY Slip Op 01870, Third Dept 3-16-20

 

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