You are here: / PATIENT ADVOCATES WHO ACCOMPANY THE CLIENTS OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRMS...

Search Results

/

PATIENT ADVOCATES WHO ACCOMPANY THE CLIENTS OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRMS TO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimants were employees of IME, which paid claimants (patient advocates) to accompany clients of personal injury law firms during independent medical examinations. Therefore claimants were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

IME advertised for patient advocates, who were required to submit resumÉs and to be interviewed. IME then imposed very specific requirements governing nearly every aspect of the work of the patient advocates that it hired. An official handbook set forth detailed instructions specifying the procedures that advocates were expected to follow during patient examinations, including instructions to immediately call the IME office upon arrival or if the examining physician required intake paperwork. The handbook also contained a script that advocates were expected to read to physicians at the beginning of every examination and specified the precise content of the reports that were required to be prepared. IME exercised control over work assignments by determining which patient advocates would be offered the opportunity to attend any particular examination, by assigning specific patient advocates in response to customer requests and by arranging for replacements when a patient advocate was unable to report to an assigned examination. IME staff reviewed all reports that were submitted. In response to complaints that it had received from customers, IME sent a memorandum to patient advocates describing common errors and admonishing them to follow the prescribed protocol and thereafter conducted a mandatory meeting regarding the required content and format of the reports. Matter of Bloomfield (IME Watchdog, Inc.), 2019 NY Slip Op 06556, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BASED UPON HER DISMISSAL FROM A NURSING PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should have considered defendant’s affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations defense, in determining defendant’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff brought fraud, breach of contract and prima facie tort causes of action against defendant. Plaintiff was enrolled in defendant’s licensed practical nurse (LPN) program and was dismissed by defendant based upon plaintiff’s performance in a clinical setting. The Third Department held that the action should have been brought in an Article 78 proceeding and was time-barred:

Supreme Court should have considered defendant’s affirmative defenses on the summary judgment motion. Although the notice of motion did not cite CPLR 3211 (a), it did seek dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, as well as “such other and further relief” as the court deemed just and proper, and defendant’s memorandum of law, submitted with the motion, addressed dismissal based on the statute of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, thereby providing plaintiff with adequate notice of these bases for the motion. … A defendant may raise an affirmative defense listed in CPLR 3211 (a) in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or, for most of those grounds, “may instead choose to raise that defense in its answer, and either move on that ground later in a motion for summary judgment, or wait until trial to have it determined” … . * * *

Plaintiff’s separate causes of action sounding in breach of contract, fraud and prima facie tort are all, at their core, challenges to defendant’s actions in dismissing her from the LPN program in a manner that allegedly was not in good faith and was without a sound factual basis, rendering her dismissal arbitrary and capricious. Thus, she should have brought her challenge in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Although courts generally possess the authority to convert a plenary action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding if jurisdiction of the parties has been obtained (see CPLR 103 [c]), conversion is not appropriate where the claims are barred by the four-month statute of limitations governing CPLR article 78 proceedings … . Meisner v Hamilton, Fulton, Montgomery Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 2019 NY Slip Op 06558, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

/ ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ON ICE ON THE RENTAL PROPERTY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord did not have a contractual duty to remove ice and snow and did not have actual or constructive notice of the icy condition on the rental property in this slip and fall case:

“As a general rule, an out-of-possession landlord is not responsible for dangerous conditions existing upon leased premises after possession of the premises has been transferred to the tenant. Exceptions to this rule include situations where the landlord retains control of the premises, has specifically contracted to repair or maintain the property, has through a course of conduct assumed a responsibility to maintain or repair the property or has affirmatively created a dangerous condition thereon” … . “[W]hen a landowner and one in actual possession have committed their rights and obligations with regard to the property to a writing, [courts] look not only to the terms of the agreement but to the parties’ course of conduct . . . to determine whether the landowner in fact surrendered control over the property such that the landowner’s duty is extinguished as a matter of law” … . However, the fact that a landlord “retain[s] the right to visit the premises, or even to approve alterations, additions or improvements, is insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord” … .

… “[W]ithout notice of a specific dangerous condition, an out-of-possession landlord cannot be faulted for failing to repair or otherwise rectify it” … . “Accordingly, the [ultimate] burden is on the plaintiff to prove actual or constructive notice and a reasonable opportunity to repair or remedy the dangerous condition” … . Rose v Kozak, 2019 NY Slip Op 06559, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

/

AMENDMENT OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATE ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET TO BE ENTITLED TO PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO CLAIMANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was deemed to have involuntarily retired and no longer attached to the labor market in August 2015, well before the amendment of the Workers’ Compensation Law which removed the requirement that a claimant demonstrate attachment to the labor market to be entitled to permanent partial disability payments. The amendment did not apply to claimant retroactively:

… [T]he amendment states, in pertinent part, that in some cases of permanent partial disability, “[c]ompensation . . . shall be payable during the continuance of such permanent partial disability, without the necessity for the claimant who is entitled to benefits at the time of classification to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [w] … ). In sum, the amendment relieves some claimants who have been classified as permanently partially disabled of the burden of having to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market in order to continue to receive wage replacement benefits … . * * *

… [C]laimant was classified as permanently partially disabled in July 2014, and proceedings were conducted before the WCLJ in August 2014 on the issues of claimant’s labor market attachment and voluntary withdrawal. The WLCJ concluded that claimant did not voluntarily retire and was not attached to the labor market, and the Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision in August 2015. … [T]he Board’s August 2015 decision was issued well before the effective date of the amendment and, as such, this is not a situation in which retroactive application of the amendment is appropriate. Given that the Board declined to apply the amendment retroactively so as to relieve claimant of his obligation to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market in order to continue to receive permanent partial disability benefits, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision. Matter of Pryer v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 2019 NY Slip Op 06561, Third Dept 9-12-19

 

/ ,

A SMALL AMOUNT OF COCAINE IN PLAIN VIEW IN DEFENDANT DRIVER’S POCKET DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, on an appeal by the People, determined finding a small amount of cocaine on defendant driver’s person did not provide probable cause to believe drugs would be in the trunk. Therefore the weapon and drugs found in the trunk, as well as defendant’s statements about searching the trunk, were properly suppressed:

… County Court concluded that the recovery of a small quantity of what appeared to be cocaine, along with a cut straw, in plain view on the defendant’s person, was insufficient to give the police probable cause to believe that additional contraband would be found in the vehicle’s trunk, particularly after a search of the passenger compartment revealed nothing. This Court has, in a factually similar case, reached the same conclusion … . Under the facts of this case, we decline to disturb the court’s finding as to lack of probable cause.

Contrary to the People’s contention, cases in which there is circumstantial evidence of recent drug use within the passenger compartment, such as when the police, during a routine traffic stop, detect the odor of burning marijuana …  are distinguishable, since such evidence provides good reason to believe that the unseen drugs may be located somewhere within the vehicle. By contrast, the fact that a small quantity of drugs is found on the defendant’s person, with no other drugs being found in the passenger compartment of the vehicle, does not, without more, provide probable cause to believe that additional drugs may be found in the trunk of the vehicle … . People v Garcia, 2019 NY Slip Op 06509, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

/ ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DAMAGES VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE AS INADEQUATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO INCREASED AWARDS FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the damages verdict as inadequate in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The Second Department ordered a new trial unless the defendant stipulates to an increased award of damages for past pain and suffering from $25,000 to $150,000 and for future pain and suffering from $0 to $100,000:

“While the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and the jury’s determination is entitled to great deference'” … , it may be set aside if the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c] …). “Although prior damage awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts, they guide and enlighten them with respect to determining whether a verdict in a given case constitutes reasonable compensation” … ,

Under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff was required to undergo an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery as a result of the accident, the jury’s award for past pain and suffering was inadequate to the extent indicated … .

Further, since it was undisputed that the cervical fusion, inter alia, permanently reduced the plaintiff’s cervical range of motion, the jury’s failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering was not based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence … , and was inadequate to the extent indicated … . Chung v Shaw, 2019 NY Slip Op 06468, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

/ , ,

THE JURY NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ VERBATIM TO COUNSEL, NOT PARAPHRASED BY THE JUDGE; THIS MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRES REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury notes should have been read verbatim to counsel, not paraphrased:

.. [T]he jury submitted a note stating, “We would like to see the difference between first and second degree murder. (Powerpoint).” The Supreme Court informed counsel, the defendant, and the codefendant that the jurors “want to be recharged on first degree and second degree.” …

The jury submitted another note which read, “Phone Records Between Jimmy & Ragene — When Did Communication Start?” During a discussion on the record, the Supreme Court mentioned that the jurors “want to know when did the communications start. And the communications started on June 11. And the stipulation covers it. So we’ll read back the stipulation.”

The record reveals that the Supreme Court did not read the entire contents of these two jury notes into the record, and there was no indication that the entire contents of the notes otherwise were shared with counsel … . Rather, the court improperly paraphrased the notes  … .

Counsel’s awareness of the existence of a note does not effectuate the court’s proper discharge of its statutory duty … . Although defense counsel may have been made aware of the existence and gist of the second note during an off-the-record discussion, this is insufficient to establish that counsel had been made aware of the precise contents of the note … . Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure, it cannot be assumed that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference to which the transcript does not refer … .

As such, the Supreme Court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the precise contents of substantive juror inquiries, and therefore, reversal is required … . People v Copeland, 2019 NY Slip Op 06507, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

/ ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not prove the amount due the plaintiff and therefore the referee’s report should not have been confirmed:

… [W]ith respect to the amount due to the plaintiff, the referee based his findings on an affidavit of Theresa Robertson, an employee of the plaintiff, who averred, based on her review of the plaintiff’s business records, that the defendant defaulted by failing to make the payment due on May 1, 2010, and “all subsequent payments.” However, as the defendant correctly contends, Robertson’s assertions in that regard constituted inadmissible hearsay … , since the records themselves were not provided to the referee … . Moreover, even if the records had been provided, ” [a] proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures'” … . Nothing in Robertson’s affidavit, in which she averred that the plaintiff received the original note on May 13, 2013, indicated that the plaintiff was the maker of the records relating to the defendant’s alleged initial default in May 2010 and her alleged failure to make payments for some period of time thereafter. Robertson also did not aver that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the plaintiff’s records and routinely relied upon by the plaintiff in its own business … . Therefore, the plaintiff failed to lay a proper foundation for the business records on which Robertson relied with respect to the amount due to the plaintiff. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court’s error in relying on the hearsay evidence was not harmless … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Durane-Bolivard, 2019 NY Slip Op 06502, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

/ ,

JUDGES IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ORDER UNIFIED PERSONAL INJURY TRIALS WHERE THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND THE INJURIES ARE INTERTWINED AS THEY WERE IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE AND A NEW UNIFIED TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, setting aside the defense verdict on liability and ordering a new trial, determined that the trial judge had the discretion to order (and should have ordered) a unified trial (both liability and damages) in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 and common law negligence action. Plaintiff (Castro) alleged the elevated work platform he was on collapsed and he fell 6 or 7 feet to the ground. There were no witnesses to the incident. Plaintiff alleged brain, head, shoulder and spine injuries. The defense alleged plaintiff was injured moving planks and did not in fact fall. Evidence of any brain injury was excluded from the trial. Because the evidence of brain injury was consistent with a fall, and inconsistent with moving planks, the exclusion of that evidence affected the fairness of the trial. The opinion makes it clear that judges in the Second Department have the discretion to order unified trials in personal injury cases:

Here, by any standard, a unified trial was warranted. Labor Law § 240(1) “imposes on owners or general contractors and their agents a nondelegable duty, and absolute liability for injuries proximately caused by the failure to provide appropriate safety devices to workers who are subject to elevation-related risks” … . [Defendants] disputed the plaintiffs’ claim that Castro fell from a scaffold and contended that the accident resulted not from an elevation-related risk, but from Castro’s action in lifting wooden planks. Evidence relating to Castro’s brain injuries, which would not have occurred from lifting wooden planks, was probative in determining how the incident occurred … . Thus, the nature of the injuries had an important bearing on the issue of liability.

The Supreme Court did not exercise its available discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a unified trial. The court’s determination was predicated upon its perception that a bifurcated trial was strictly required by the Second Department’s “rules.” However, neither the statewide rule nor the governing precedent absolutely requires that the trial of a personal injury action be bifurcated. Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases. …

Because the issues of liability and Castro’s injuries were so intertwined, the court’s insistence upon bifurcation and its ensuing limitations on the scope of the medical evidence that could be elicited by the plaintiffs deprived them of a fair trial. Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06466, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

/ , ,

PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND ENDORSEMENTS WAS “MATERIAL AND NECESSARY” TO THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE BANK HAS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the bank in this foreclosure action to produce the original note and endorsements should have been granted. Defendant had challenged the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action and the production of the original note and endorsements was “material and necessary” to resolve the standing question:

It is undisputed that a copy of the underlying note was annexed to the complaint. However, it cannot be ascertained from the copy of the note provided by the plaintiff whether the separate page that bears the endorsement in blank was stamped on the back of the note, as alleged by the plaintiff, or on an allonge, and if on an allonge, whether the allonge was “so firmly affixed as to become a part thereof,” as required under UCC 3-202(2). Since the answers to these questions are “material and necessary” to the defense of lack of standing, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to produce the original note and endorsements … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Charleston, 2019 NY Slip Op 06463, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

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