You are here: / FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19...

Search Results

/ , ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE JUSTIFIED THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING TO THAT EFFECT DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS NOT IRRATIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, affirmed the arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine:

… [T]he court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was against public policy because petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden to establish that the award in this employer-employee dispute violated public policy” … . We further agree with respondents that the court “erred in vacating the award on the ground that it was irrational” … . ” ‘An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ … . Where, however, “an arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached,’ the arbitration award must be upheld” … . Here, inasmuch as it is undisputed that [the employer] directed petitioner to receive the vaccine by a date certain, that it apprised her that her continued employment was dependent upon her compliance, and that petitioner refused to be vaccinated by the required date, the court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was irrational … . Further, the court was not permitted to vacate the award merely because it believed vacatur would better serve the interest of justice … . Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 02445, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The arbitrator’s determination petitioner was properly terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination did not violate public policy and was not irrational.

 

/ ,

THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN CPLR 3216 PRECLUDED DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to comply with the requirements of CPLR 3216 precluded the dismissal of the complaint:

… [A]bsent strict compliance with the conditions precedent to dismissal set forth in CPLR 3216 (b) (3), “[n]o dismissal shall be directed” … . Indeed, “[t]he conditions precedent to bringing a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under CPLR 3216 must be complied with strictly” … .

Among those conditions precedent are the service of a ninety-day demand to resume prosecution, by registered or certified mail, which specifically states that the failure to file the note of issue within ninety days will serve as a basis for a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution … . Where the ninety-day demand is served by the court, the demand shall also “set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … .

Here, the court did not serve a ninety-day demand upon plaintiff, and for that reason alone, the court erred in directing dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court’s second supplemental scheduling order could serve as the substitute for a ninety-day demand, that scheduling order did not indicate that dismissal would result if plaintiff failed to file the note of issue, nor did it set forth the specific conduct constituting plaintiff’s neglect … . “While an order may have the same effect as a valid 90-day demand, that order must advise as to the consequences for failing to comply, i.e., dismissal of the complaint” … , and here, the order wholly failed to do so. Woloszuk v Logan-Young, 2025 NY Slip Op 02444, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The conditions precedent for dismissal of a complaint in CPRL 3216 must be strictly complied with by the judge or reversal is mandatory.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH ALL JUSTICES AGREED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ILLUSORY, THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THE NAMES OF WITNESSES CAPTURED ON A VIDEO (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the People’s certificate of compliance (COC) was not illusory and, therefore, the speedy trial statute was not violated. The concurrence agreed the COC was not illusory, but argued the People should have ascertained and turned over the names of witnesses which were depicted in a video:

… [W]ith respect to defendant’s claim that the People failed to turn over the names and contact information of several witnesses who were depicted on surveillance footage inside the convenience store when defendant was arrested, CPL 245.20 (1) (c) provides in relevant part that the People are required to disclose “[t]he names and adequate contact information for all persons other than law enforcement personnel whom the prosecutor knows to have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged or to any potential defense thereto.” The People are not, however, required “to ascertain the existence of witnesses not known to the police or another law enforcement agency” … . The record shows that the People did not know or have in their possession the names of those witnesses with the exception of one witness whose name they learned just prior to the scheduled trial. The court thus properly determined that the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to ascertain the existence of the discovery materials … .

From the concurrence (Justice Whalen):

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the People had no obligation to make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the names and contact information of several witnesses who were depicted on surveillance footage inside the convenience store when defendant was arrested. Although the People are not required to “ascertain the existence of witnesses” not known to law enforcement … , here the record establishes that, at the time their discovery obligation under CPL article 245 arose, the People possessed knowledge that several of the witnesses depicted on the surveillance footage had “evidence or information relevant to any offense charged” … . Specifically, the People possessed the statements of the store owner and the victim, as well as the police report from the arresting officer, each of which reflects that just prior to defendant’s arrest, the depicted store employees tackled defendant to the ground, locked the door, and waited for police to arrive. Inasmuch as there is no plausible argument that the store employees who held defendant down after an attempted robbery did not “have evidence or information relevant to any offense charged” … , the People were obligated to “make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain” … the “names and adequate contact information for [those] persons” … . In my opinion, the majority, in concluding otherwise, is conflating the statutory requirement that the People possess knowledge of the “existence of witnesses” … with knowledge of the names of witnesses. People v Burrows, 2025 NY Slip Op 02436, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The concurrence argued the majority conflated the fact that the People need not ascertain the existence of witnesses they are not aware of with the obligation to ascertain the names of witnesses of which the People are aware.

 

/ , , , , , ,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS “NEGLIGENT USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE,” “FALSE ARREST,” AND “UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT” ACTION STEMMING FROM THE STREET STOP, SHOOTING AND ARREST OF THE PLAINTIFF; THE DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined conflicting evidence precluded summary judgment in this civil action stemming from the street stop and arrest of the plaintiff. Although plaintiff pled guilty, which usually forecloses any argument that the arrest was not supported by probable cause, here evidence submitted the defendant transit authority raised a question of fact about probable cause. The action alleged the negligent use of excessive force (plaintiff was shot through the windshield of his vehicle), false arrest and unlawful imprisonment:

Excessive force claims are evaluated ” ‘under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard’ ” … . * * *

“Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide” … .

” ‘The fact that a person whom a police officer attempts to arrest resists, threatens, or assaults the officer no doubt justifies the officer’s use of some degree of force, but it does not give the officer license to use force without limit. The force used by the officer must be reasonably related to the nature of the resistance and the force used, threatened, or reasonably perceived to be threatened, against the officer’ ” … . …

Though “[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the [false imprisonment cause of action]” … , the issue of probable cause is “generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury, and should ‘be decided by the court only where there is no real dispute as to the facts or the proper inferences to be drawn surrounding the arrest’ ” … . Thomas v Niagara Frontier Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02433, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an analysis of “negligent use of excessive force,” “false arrest,” and “unlawful imprisonment” causes of action at the summary-judgment stage, in the face of conflicting evidence.​

 

/ , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this breach of contract action, determined that, although the defendant’s attorney-affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of the documents and relied on those documents in opposing defendant’s motion:

Supreme Court improvidently concluded that defendant’s documentary evidence was not admissible for purposes of its motion. An attorney’s affirmation “‘may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence,’ so long as the [affirmation] ‘constitute[s] a proper foundation for the admission of the records'” … . The court was correct that defendant’s attorney, in her affirmation, did not lay a foundation for the admission of the records, such as her personal knowledge or her certification of the documents as true and complete copies of the originals. However, plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of any of the documents annexed to the attorney’s affirmation … and relied on the same documents in opposition to defendant’s motion … . AWL Indus., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: An attorney affidavit can be used as a vehicle for the admission of documentary evidence if the affidavit lays a proper foundation.

Practice Point: Here, although the defendant’s attorney affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because the plaintiff did not object to them and relied on them in opposition to the defendant’s motion.

 

/ , , , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COURT SHOULD USE ITS AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY WHICH SHOULD BE EMPLOYED SPARINGLY, FACTORS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurring decision and an extensive dissent, determined the juvenile delinquency petition should be dismissed in the interest of justice. The concurrence argued the dismissal should be based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. The dissent argued this difficult situation was properly handled:

Although we are mindful that “[d]ismissal in the furtherance of justice is an extraordinary remedy that must be employed sparingly,” it is our opinion that this is one of “those rare cases where there [are] compelling factor[s] which clearly demonstrate[ ] that prosecution [resulted in an] injustice” .. . … [A]ttempted assault in the third degree, a class B misdemeanor, is not serious … . … [T]he DSS caseworker was not seriously injured. * * * … [A]t the time of the attempted assault, respondent was in DSS’ care and custody because her mother was deceased and her grandmother, who subsequently adopted respondent, ultimately surrendered her rights. Respondent has a reportedly low IQ and a history of mental illness which was so severe that Family Court ordered a capacity evaluation … . Indeed, respondent had been brought to the hospital emergency room based on what was legally designed to be a temporary Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 hold. Respondent remained in what was essentially a lock and key detention in the hospital, mostly in the emergency room, under dubious circumstances for an outrageous period of six months.

… Respondent already had numerous strikes against her, not only her lack of a parent/guardian and her serious mental health challenges, but also a previous juvenile delinquency adjudication. This additional juvenile delinquency finding is a red flag that will undoubtedly hinder opportunities and could cause difficulty for respondent should she seek mental health assistance in the future. Simply put, respondent needs no additional baggage, especially not baggage stemming from a juvenile delinquency petition that was admittedly filed and continued because of the difficulty of placing her in a suitable setting … . Matter of A. WW., 2025 NY Slip Op 02377, Third Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed analysis of an appellate court’s authority under the Family Court Act to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition “in the interest of justice.”

 

/

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF DO NOT APPLY TO A SLIPPERY SUBSTANCE ON A LADDER, REQUIRING THE DISMISSAL OF A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain provisions of the Industrial Code did not apply to a slippery substance on a ladder, requiring the dismissal of a Labor Law 241(6) cause of action:

The court should have dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim … on the basis that the Industrial Code provisions on which plaintiffs rely are inapplicable or abandoned. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (d) does not apply to this case because the ladder from which plaintiff fell “was not ‘a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface'” … . 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2) do not apply because there is no evidence that Thomas “tripped over any materials, debris or equipment” … . 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (3) (iv) is limited to structural defects in ladders … and does not apply to the slippery substance on the ladder in this case … . D’Angelo v Legacy Yards Tenant LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02409, First Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: A ladder is not a “floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface” within the meaning of the Industrial Code section 12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (d).

Practice Point: Industrial Code sections12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2) address tripping over “materials, debris or equipment” and does not apply to a slippery substance on a ladder.

Practice Point: Industrial Code section 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (3) (iv) applies to structural defects in ladders and does not apply to a slippery substance on a ladder.

 

/ , ,

THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict should not have been granted. The motion was based upon affidavits from two jurors which were drafted after the jury was discharged. There was no support in the record for the claims made in the affidavits:

“It has long been the law that, with narrow exceptions, jury verdicts may not be impeached by probes into the jury’s deliberative process” …. Further, “jurors may not impeach their own verdict unless they have been subjected to outside influence” … . This principle, however, is subject to two exceptions. First, “where an error is made in reporting the verdict, the trial judge may, upon the unanimous affidavits or statements of the jurors, correct the judgment to conform to the actual verdict” … . Second, “where the record demonstrates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict, the court must direct a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of justice to the litigants” … . However, “[t]he use of post-discharge juror affidavits to attack the verdict is ‘patently improper’ where the record is devoid of any evidence of external influence, juror confusion, or ministerial error in reporting the verdict” … .

… [Defendant] sought to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of apportionment of liability based upon post-discharge affidavits from two jurors indicating that the jury was confused regarding the apportionment of liability. However, the trial record is devoid of any evidence of juror confusion regarding the issue of apportionment of liability, and thus, the use of post-discharge affidavits from jurors to attack the verdict is patently improper … . Gleneida Med. Care, P.C. v DBG Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02323, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of when a jury verdict may be impeached by probing into the jury’s deliberative process.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED MORE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT UNDER EITHER THE “GOOD CAUSE” OR “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” CRITERIA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been granted more time to serve the summons and complaint under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a plaintiff is required to serve the summons and complaint within 120 days after commencement of the action. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the defendant within that time, “the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service” … . Such a showing is not required to obtain an extension of time under the interest of justice standard, which is a broader standard intended to “‘accommodate late service that might be due to mistake, confusion or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant'” … . “The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . In reaching its determination, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish good cause to extend the time to serve [defendant], as no evidence was offered that she attempted to serve him with reasonable diligence. Further, … the plaintiff failed to establish that an extension of time to serve … was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for the eight-month delay in filing the affidavit of service, the delay in moving, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment … , and the four-month delay in moving to extend the time to serve … after the defendants had cross-moved … to dismiss the complaint … for lack of personal jurisdiction. There is no evidence in the record that [defendant] had notice of the action during the 120-day period after the commencement of the action … . Druss v Scher, 2025 NY Slip Op 02318, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Even though the statute of limitations had passed. plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence precluded an extension of time to serve the defendant, under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria.

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action should not have been granted. The defendant relied on the expert opinion of a physician who did not demonstrate familiarity with nursing home care and did not address the allegations that plaintiff’s decedent was left unattended on the floor after she fell and defendant’s personnel did not cooperate with the EMS personnel who attended the decedent:

“On a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a medical malpractice action, a defendant must make a prima facie showing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured by any such departure” … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … .

“Liability under the Public Health Law contemplates injury to the patient caused by the deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code or rule, subject to the defense that the facility exercised all care reasonably necessary to prevent and limit the deprivation and injury to the patient. …

… [W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . …

… [T]he defendant relied on an expert affirmation of a physician who engaged in, inter alia, the practice of cardiac critical care. This affirmation did not indicate that the physician had training in geriatric or nursing home care or what, if anything, the physician did to become familiar with the standard of care for these specialties … . … [T]he defendant’s expert failed to specifically address the allegations that the defendant’s staff members left the decedent on the floor unattended while awaiting the arrival of EMS and failed to cooperate with EMS personnel upon their arrival … . … [T]he EMS report reflected that the defendant failed to provide EMS personnel with more than mere transfer paperwork. … [T]he decedent initially could not be identified because she did not have an identification band, and EMS personnel did not know whether the patient was on blood thinners or subject to any “advance directives.” Deitch v Sands Point Ctr. for Health & Rehabilitation, 2025 NY Slip Op 02317, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the very different nature of a medical malpractice action as compared with a Public Health Law 2801-d action.

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s decedent fell at her nursing home. Defendant’s expert, a cardiac physician, did not demonstrate any familiarity with nursing home care, rendering his affidavit insufficient.

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action, the expert’s failure to address all the allegations in the pleadings renders the expert evidence insufficient.

 

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