You are here: / THE POND INTO WHICH THE 96-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT APPARENTLY...

Search Results

/ ,

THE POND INTO WHICH THE 96-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT APPARENTLY SLID WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THE FACT THAT THE BANK OF THE POND IS SLIPPERY IS INCIDENTAL TO ITS NATURE AND LOCATION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUPPORT THE ASSERTION THAT THE POND WAS DEFECTIVE AND UNSAFE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant property owners’ motion for summary judgment in this wrongful death case was properly granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was 96 years old and resided in defendants’ senior citizen facility. Plaintiff’s decedent was found  dead in a pond on the property. The medical examiner concluded plaintiff’s decedent may has slipped on the sloping bank of the pond and slid into the water where he died of drowning:

… [A] landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … .

Here, defendants met their initial burden on the motion by establishing that the pond, including its sloping bank, was an open and obvious condition inherent or incidental to the nature of the property and that it was known to decedent prior to the accident …. “A slippery condition on a [pond’s bank] is necessarily incidental to its nature and location near a body of water” … . …

… [T]he engineering expert’s affidavit that plaintiff submitted fails to indicate that it was based on any studies, regulations, codes, or statutes, “nor is the expert’s conclusion that the [retention pond] was defective and unsafe . . . supported by foundational facts, such as a deviation from industry standards or statistics showing the frequency of injuries caused by” the lack of safety measures proposed by the expert … . Preston v Castle Pointe, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04617, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ , , ,

THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND THEREFORE HIS CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined “reckless disregard” standard for the operation of a police car in an emergency situation applied to the facts, and further found that the officer’s conduct did not rise to the level of “reckless disregard:”

We agree with defendants that the court erred in determining that the defendant officer’s conduct was not measured by the “reckless disregard” standard of care under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) … . That standard of care “applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b)” …  and, if applicable, the driver is “shielded from liability unless [he or she] is shown to have acted with reckless disregard’ of the safety of others” … . Here, there is no dispute that the defendant officer was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” and was “involved in an emergency operation” at the time of the accident (§ 1104 [a]). Furthermore, defendants’ submissions in support of their motion established as a matter of law that the defendant officer was performing exempted conduct when he “proceed[ed] past a steady red signal . . . , but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation” … . …

Here, the defendant officer’s uncontroverted testimony established that he was responding to a disturbance call that was “[p]riority 1,” i.e., the highest priority level, and that he took several precautions before proceeding into the intersection against the red light. Specifically, he slowed his vehicle to an almost complete stop, looked to his right and left, and then slowly proceeded into the intersection at a speed of about five miles per hour. When plaintiffs’ vehicle came into the defendant officer’s peripheral vision, he “slammed” his brake and attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiffs’ vehicle. Where, as here, a defendant officer takes precautionary measures before engaging in exempted conduct under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b), the police officer does not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Levere v City of Syracuse, 2019 NY Slip Op 04613, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ , , ,

PORTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS’ APPRAISAL REPORT IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BECAUSE THE PROPER VALUATION METHOD WAS USED; THE EVIDENTIARY RULING ON THE MOTION IN LIMINE IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE THE RULING AFFECTS THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the portions of motion in limine seeking to strike parts of respondents’ appraisal report in this condemnation proceeding should not have been granted. The court noted that the evidentiary ruling was appealable because it limited the scope of the trial issues. The court further noted that the proof of valuation offered at trial must be limited to the valuation method(s) described in the appraisal report:

Where, as here, “the highest and best use is the one the property presently serves and that use is income-producing, then the capitalization of income is a proper method of valuation” … . In our view, the stricken portion of respondents’ appraisal report, although titled “investment valuation,” applied an income capitalization approach using the standard income capitalization formula, i.e., value equals net income divided by a capitalization rate … , and applied factors that, according to respondents’ appraiser, accurately reflect the property’s value and would make the property more appealing to prospective purchasers. To the extent that petitioner contends that certain factors considered by respondents’ appraiser in valuing the property do not accurately reflect market value, “[t]he fact that some aspects of the valuation methodology [of respondents’ appraiser] may be subject to question goes to the weight to be accorded the appraisal[],” not its admissibility … . … Matter of Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Auth. v Stensrud, 2019 NY Slip Op 04612, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGED DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE AND PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS, THE DOCTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the medical malpractice action against defendant Dr. Dietz and his employer should have been granted because plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about whether the alleged departure from the standard of care had a causal relationship with the plaintiff’s injury. The majority concluded the expert’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact with respect a second defendant, Dr. Pedersen, but the dissent argued the affidavit with respect to Dr. Pedersen was conclusory and did not demonstrate a causal relationship:

… [P]laintiff’s expert did not opine that Dr. Dietz caused the iliac vein injury and instead opined that Dr. Dietz deviated from the standard of care by insufficiently examining or testing the iliac vein following Dr. Pedersen’s repair. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert did not indicate the possible results of any such examination or testing, whether those results should have prompted a different course of treatment, or how Dr. Dietz’s alleged departure from the standard of care otherwise caused plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to causation regarding Dr. Dietz … . Dickinson v Bassett Healthcare, 2019 NY Slip Op 04610, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER ABANDONED THE CHILD, THE PERMANENT NEGLECT FINDING, HOWEVER, WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court determined the evidence did not support the finding that father abandoned the child, but the evidence did support a finding of permanent neglect. The criteria for permanent neglect, not summarized here, are described in some depth in the decision. The matter was sent back for a dispositional hearing or a waiver of the hearing:

“An order terminating parental rights may be entered upon the ground that a child’s parent abandoned such child for the period of six months immediately prior to the date on which the petition is filed in the court’ ” … . A child is deemed abandoned “if the parent evinces an intent to forego his or her parental rights and obligations as manifested by his or her failure to visit the child and communicate with the child or agency, although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by the agency’ ” … . “Parents are presumed able to visit and communicate with their children and, although incarcerated parents may be unable to visit, they are still presumed able to communicate with their children absent proof to the contrary” … .

Here, the record establishes that the father—following up on a prior attempt to establish paternity that he had initially failed to adequately pursue—definitively established his paternity, while incarcerated, less than two months into the six-month period preceding the filing of the petition … . Thereafter, throughout the relevant period, the father initiated communications with the child’s caseworker; sent the caseworker at least four letters inquiring about the child and included a card and drawing for the child in at least one of those letters; and participated in a service plan review. We conclude that the father’s contacts “were not minimal, sporadic, or insubstantial” … . Matter of Jarrett P. (Jeremy P.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04609. Second Dept 6-7-19

 

/ , ,

A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A PAT SEARCH; HOWEVER THE SMELL OF MARIJUANA, ABOUT WHICH THE OFFICER TESTIFIED, WOULD JUSTIFY A SEARCH; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT RULE ON THE MARIJUANA-SMELL ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that, although the suppression court determined the police officer had a founded suspicion of criminality when he ordered defendant out of the car, a founded suspicion of criminality did not justify ordering the defendant to place his hands on the patrol car in preparation for a pat search. However. the officer testified he smelled marijuana, which would justify and search. Because the court did not rule on that issue, the matter was sent back for a ruling:

Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer observed that there were two occupants, one of whom, i.e., defendant, was moving around in the backseat and putting his hands in his front pocket as if he was “stuffing something either in his coat or in his pants as if to conceal it from [the officer].” … The officer asked the driver and defendant for identification and thereafter learned that the driver’s license of the driver had been revoked and that defendant did not have a driver’s license.

The officer directed defendant to exit the vehicle and place his hands on the patrol car so that the officer could conduct a pat search. Defendant exited the vehicle as directed but thereafter fled, discarding components of a 9 millimeter Glock semiautomatic pistol as he ran. …

Because the driver pulled over of his own volition before the officer activated his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop, the officer needed only an articulable basis to lawfully approach the occupants of the vehicle and request information … . That basis was supplied by the officer’s observation that the vehicle was being operated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (1) … . Thus, the officer’s conduct “was justified in its inception” … .

The court determined that the officer had a founded suspicion of criminality prior to ordering defendant to exit the vehicle for the pat search. A founded suspicion of criminality standing alone, however, was insufficient to justify the officer’s conduct in ordering defendant to place his hands on the patrol car in preparation for a pat search … . Nevertheless, in making its determination, the court credited the officer’s testimony that he smelled fresh marihuana emanating from the vehicle and was experienced in detecting marihuana. It is well settled that “[t]he odor of marihuana emanating from a vehicle, when detected by an officer qualified by training and experience to recognize it, is sufficient to constitute probable cause to search a vehicle and its occupants”  … . People v Green, 2019 NY Slip Op 04608, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel were sufficient to warrant further inquiry by the court:

… [D]efendant “articulated complaints about his assigned counsel that were sufficiently serious to trigger the court’s duty to engage in an inquiry regarding those complaints”…  At a pretrial appearance, defendant requested that the court assign him new counsel because, among other things, defense counsel had failed to file discovery demands and omnibus motions. After defendant’s request, defense counsel erroneously stated, “[t]hose were filed already,” and the court stated, “I have them here. I’m holding them in my hand.” However, the People concede that, although certain discovery demands were served on the People, defense counsel never filed any omnibus motions.

Upon being told that omnibus motions had been filed, defendant informed the court that he had never received them. The court replied, “Well, that’s a different issue, okay? So you’ve got to get a copy of your paperwork, all right? What else?” The court never conducted an inquiry into defendant’s serious complaint that defense counsel failed to file any omnibus motions and, instead, proceeded under the mistaken belief that they had been filed. Although “[t]he court might well have found upon limited inquiry that defendant’s request was without genuine basis, . . . it could not so summarily dismiss th[at] request” based on a mistaken belief that omnibus motions had been filed … . Thus, we conclude that the court violated defendant’s right to counsel by failing to make a minimal inquiry concerning his serious complaint, and we therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial … . People v Edwards, 2019 NY Slip Op 04537, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS INJURED BY AN OUTWARD-SWINGING BATHROOM DOOR WHICH OPENED INTO THE HALLWAY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE VERDICT PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the motion to set aside the negligence verdict against the school district was properly denied. Plaintiff student was injured by a bathroom door which opened outward into the hallway on the side of the hallway the students were instructed to use:

[The] evidence, which we have evaluated in light of the unchallenged jury instructions given by the court … , included testimony from the school’s principal that it would have been safer for students walking in the hallway to have the door open inward and that the likelihood of the door opening into someone’s path was increased because the students were instructed to walk on the right side of the hallway next to the door. In addition, the director of facilities for defendant Williamsville Central School District at the time of the incident testified that it was very possible that the outward-swinging door could strike someone walking down the hallway, that he did not know of any reason why the door opened outward, and that the door could have been modified by his staff in a short time at minimal expense. The jury was also able to consider trial exhibits including oversized photographs and architectural schemata to help it determine whether, in light of all the circumstances … , the bathroom door was, as charged by the court, “reasonably safe.” Thus, even apart from the testimony of the expert, there is legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude, based on common sense and the ordinary experience and knowledge possessed by laypersons … , that the outward-opening door was not reasonably safe. Douglas F. v Williamsville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 04536, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ , ,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE COUNTY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) FOR THE NEGLIGENT ACTIONS OF A CORONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE CORONER ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED A PORTION OF THE REMAINS OF PLAINTIFF’S SON TO A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THE TRAINING OF CADAVER DOGS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the county, based upon the alleged negligence of a county employee, should not have been dismissed. It was alleged that a coroner (Jackman) employed by the county transferred human remains (plaintiff’s son) to a volunteer fire company for the purpose of train cadaver dogs:

Although it is generally a question for the jury whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment … , an employer is not liable as a matter of law “if the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business’ “… .

Here, there is evidence that Jackman’s decision to transfer a portion of the remains of plaintiffs’ son (decedent) to defendant Vincent Salerno, the Fire Chief of Cambria, was driven by a work-related purpose, rather than Jackman’s own personal interests … . Furthermore, there are issues of fact whether it was foreseeable that Jackman, in performing his obligations as a county coroner, might negligently remove, transport, or even transfer decedent’s remains. “[F]or an employee to be regarded as acting within the scope of his [or her] employment, the employer need not have foreseen the precise act or the exact manner of the injury as long as the general type of conduct may have been reasonably expected” … . An employee’s “[m]ere . . . deviation from the line of . . . duty does not relieve [the] employer of responsibility” … . …

… [W]e reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in granting Cambria’s motion. The unrefuted evidence showed that Cambria’s employee, Salerno, had only personal motives for requesting decedent’s remains from Jackman, i.e., to further his own interest in training dogs to locate cadavers … . Salerno had no official duties that required him to train cadaver dogs or obtain human remains to train such dogs. Dunn v County of Niagara, 2019 NY Slip Op 04530, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO EXPLAIN HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS RECEIVING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND HIS REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant should have been given the opportunity to explain his reasons for requesting a new attorney:

… [D]uring the plea colloquy, defendant attempted to inform the court that he was pleading guilty only because he was not receiving effective assistance of counsel. Although vague and conclusory complaints about counsel generally are insufficient to trigger the court’s duty to make an inquiry … , the court here “failed to provide defendant with an opportunity to explain his complaints” … . The court refused to accept defendant’s pro se letter regarding the matter and did not otherwise allow defendant to expand upon his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s “request may well have been a frivolous delaying tactic” … . Nevertheless, we conclude that the court had “no basis to completely cut off the discussion without hearing any explanation” … . A “defendant must at least be given an opportunity to state the basis for his [or her] application” … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 04543, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

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