You are here: / PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF...

Search Results

/

PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a concurring opinion, determined that the “place of business” exception the the stature criminalizing possession of an unlicensed firearm as a felony did not apply to defendant, who was a swing manager at a McDonald’s restaurant. While working at the restaurant the defendant’s firearm discharged accidentally and wounded him:

The question presented on this appeal is whether the “place of business” exception to Penal Law § 265.03 (3) applies to an employee who possessed an unlicensed firearm at work. Defendant contends that “place of business” simply means one’s place of employment, and therefore the exception applies. We read the exception to narrowly encompass a person’s “place of business,” when such person is a merchant, storekeeper, or principal operator of a like establishment. People v Wallace, 2018 NY Slip Op 03305, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP))/PLACE OF BUSINESS (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AS A FELONY DID NOT APPLY TO A MANAGER OF A MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, AS OPPOSED TO A MERCHANT, STOREKEEPER OR PRINCIPAL OPERATOR (CT APP))

/ ,

LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals denied the motion for leave to appeal in a case seeking habeas corpus relief for two chimpanzees alleged to be confined by their owners to small cages in a warehouse and a cement storefront in a crowded residential area … . Judge Fahey wrote a thoughtful concurring opinion questioning the rationale used by the Appellate Division to deny relief:

The Appellate Division’s conclusion that a chimpanzee cannot be considered a “person” and is not entitled to habeas relief is in fact based on nothing more than the premise that a chimpanzee is not a member of the human species … . …

The better approach in my view is to ask not whether a chimpanzee fits the definition of a person or whether a chimpanzee has the same rights and duties as a human being, but instead whether he or she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. That question, one of precise moral and legal status, is the one that matters here. Moreover, the answer to that question will depend on our assessment of the intrinsic nature of chimpanzees as a species. …

Does an intelligent nonhuman animal who thinks and plans and appreciates life as human beings do have the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary cruelties and enforced detentions visited on him or her? This is not merely a definitional question, but a deep dilemma of ethics and policy that demands our attention. To treat a chimpanzee as if he or she had no right to liberty protected by habeas corpus is to regard the chimpanzee as entirely lacking independent worth, as a mere resource for human use, a thing the value of which consists exclusively in its usefulness to others. Instead, we should consider whether a chimpanzee is an individual with inherent value who has the right to be treated with respect … . Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, 2018 NY Slip Op 03309, CtApp 5-8-18

​ANIMAL LAW (LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))/APPEALS (ANIMAL RIGHTS, LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))//HABEAS CORPUS (ANIMAL RIGHTS, LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))

/ , ,

BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’ RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined that substantial evidence supported the NYC Commission on Human Rights’ ruling that the conversion of a window to a handicapped-accessible entrance for a tenant in petitioners’ building would not cause petitioners undue hardship. The dissent argued petitioners had carried their burden of proof on that issue by presenting evidence the conversion presented many structural issues which might necessitate evacuation of the building. The majority simply decided there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s ruling and an appellate court’s review power stops there:

In light of the Commission’s ruling in favor of respondents and because petitioners have the burden of demonstrating undue hardship … , the issue is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion that petitioners failed to carry that burden.

“Quite often there is substantial evidence on both sides” of an issue disputed before an administrative agency … , and the substantial evidence test “demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable” … . Applying this standard, “[c]ourts may not weigh the evidence or reject [a] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” … . Instead, “when a rational basis for the conclusion adopted by the [agency] is found, the judicial function is exhausted. The question, thus, is not whether [the reviewing court] find[s] the proof . . . convincing, but whether the [agency] could do so” … . Matter of Marine Holdings, LLC v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 03303, CtApp 5-8-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’S RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))/APPEALS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’S RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))

/

WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly determined the presumption the will had been revoked had not been rebutted. Petitioner had attempted to probate a photocopy of the will which could not be found upon the death of the testator:

“A lost or destroyed will may be admitted to probate only if . . . [i]t is established that the will has not been revoked” (SCPA 1407 [1]).

” When a will previously executed cannot be found after the death of the testator, there is a strong presumption that it was revoked by destruction by the testator’ ” … . That “strong presumption of revocation by the testator . . . stands in the place of positive proof when a will previously executed cannot be found after a testator’s death”… . Respondent was thus entitled to rely on the presumption to meet his burden on the motion … . In addition, petitioner’s own submissions established that decedent asked to retain the original will in her possession, and the attorney who drafted the will had the original delivered to decedent shortly after its execution … .

In opposition to the motion, petitioner failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a question of fact whether the presumption of revocation may be overcome … . The presumption is unaffected by evidence that decedent’s attorney retained a copy of the will at his office and that decedent never advised him that she intended to revoke the will … . Nor may the presumption be overcome with hearsay accounts of decedent’s statements concerning her testamentary intentions … . Finally, while the presumption of revocation may be overcome with circumstantial evidence … , “[p]etitioner[] cannot succeed on mere speculation and suspicion” … . Rather, petitioner must present “facts and circumstances which show that the will was fraudulently destroyed during the testator’s lifetime” … . Matter of Scollan, 2018 NY Slip Op 03287, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/WILLS (REVOKED, WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/REVOCATION, PRESUMPTION OF (WILLS, WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/LOST WILLS (WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant Buffalo Auto Rental (BAR) was estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle in which plaintiff, a passenger, was injured. Although the driver’s (Mayfield’s) mother (Julie Robertson) had purchased the car and had insured it, it was still had BAR’s registration plates on it at the time of the accident. The court noted that BAR’s summary judgment motion papers included Mayfield’s deposition testimony in which Mayfield claimed he was driving fast to escape another driver who was acting aggressively. The testimony raised a question of fact about the availability of the emergency defense, precluding summary judgment on the issue of Mayfield’s negligence without the need to consider the opposing papers:

… [T]he court properly determined that BAR was estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle as a matter of law. Even assuming, arguendo, that it was the intention of BAR and Robertson that Robertson was to be the legalowner of the vehicle after she executed the bill of sale and took physical possession of the vehicle … , we conclude that the issue of legal ownership is not determinative. “Whether or not [BAR] was still the owner of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident need not be determined; [BAR], having left [its] registration plates on the motor vehicle, is estopped to deny [its] ownership” as against plaintiff … . Contrary to BAR’s contention, the fact that Robertson had obtained insurance for the vehicle does not mandate a different result inasmuch as the public policy reasons for the estoppel doctrine are not limited to issues of insurance coverage … . White v Mayfield, 2018 NY Slip Op 03270, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REGISTRATION PLATES, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/REGISTRATION PLATES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLES (OWNERSHIP, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town’s motion for summary judgment in this snowplow-car accident case should have been granted. Even though the plow was up at the time of the accident, the Vehicle and Traffic Law “reckless disregard” standard applied, and the snowplow driver’s (Hanssen’s) actions did not amount to “reckless disregard:”

… [D]efendants established as a matter of law that the reckless disregard standard of care, and not negligence, is applicable to this case pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of Hanssen, who testified that he was plowing snow and salting the roads on his assigned route at the time of the accident, and section 1103 (b) applies where, as here, a snowplow truck is “actually engaged in work on a highway” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, although defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiffs that the plow blade was up at the time of the accident, that is not enough to raise an issue of fact inasmuch as it was uncontroverted that Hanssen was salting the road and was “working his run’ or beat’ at the time of the accident” … . …

Hanssen testified at his deposition that he slowed down as he approached the stop sign and was moving at a speed of five miles per hour just prior to the intersection. He looked both ways for traffic, but did not see plaintiffs’ approaching vehicle. That evidence, which was not controverted by the deposition testimony of plaintiffs, established that Hanssen did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Harris v Hanssen, 2018 NY Slip Op 03257, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SNOWPLOWS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENDANT CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant city’s motion for summary judgment in this car-pedestrian injury case should not have been granted. The city had paved a driveway which connected a road to a pave walking path in a park. Defendant driver, who was intoxicated, drove his car to the park path where plaintiffs had been walking their dogs. There were no barriers or warning signs. The city was not immune because maintenance of a park is a proprietary, not a governmental function:

… [W]e note that, while the City has a duty to maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition … , plaintiffs’ claims also implicate the City’s “duty to maintain its park and playground facilities in a reasonably safe condition”… . We thus reject the City’s contention that it is immune from liability because plaintiffs’ claims arise from its performance of a governmental function. “It is well settled that regardless of whether or not it is a source of income the operation of a public park by a municipality is a quasi-private or corporate and not a governmental function” … . Furthermore, a “municipality may not ignore the foreseeable dangers [it created], continue to extend an invitation to the public to use the area and not be held accountable for resultant injuries” … . Similarly, where, as here, it is undisputed that the City did not consider and render a determination regarding any potential danger prior to paving the driveway, the City’s maintenance of the intersection in question is also a proprietary function … . …

The City never disputed in its motion papers that it paved the driveway during its development of the park, thereby creating the condition of which plaintiffs now complain, but it instead argued that “[p]laintiffs have offered no evidence” that the City failed to adhere to applicable design standards or that the driveway created or enhanced a risk to park patrons. It is well established that “a party does not carry its burden in moving for summary judgment by pointing to gaps in its opponent’s proof” … . Similarly, because the City relied exclusively on its argument, unsupported by any evidence, that a defective or dangerous condition did not exist for which a warning was required, it also failed to establish as a matter of law that it had no duty to warn of the foreseeable danger of collision created by this driveway access … . Brady v City of N. Tonawanda, 2018 NY Slip Op 03253, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANT (CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/IMMUNITY (CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/PARKS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (GAPS IN PROOF, CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant resident physicians’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s bowel was perforated during an emergency caesrean section. The residents did not exercise any independent judgment during the surgery and were not required to intervene in the treatment by the attending physician (Dr. Balaya):

Dr. Bayala’s affidavit also addressed the care provided by the three resident physicians. Dr. Balaya averred that the resident physicians were all under his supervision and direction and, thus, they never exercised independent judgment or made an independent decision with respect to plaintiff’s care or treatment … . In addition, Dr. Balaya averred that none of the resident physicians could be held liable for failure to intervene in plaintiff’s care and treatment on the ground that his alleged deviations from normal medical practice were so great that such intervention was warranted … . …

Plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion failed to raise an issue of fact whether any of the resident physicians exercised independent medical judgment in plaintiff’s care or treatment, or neglected to intervene in plaintiff’s care or treatment where the attending physician’s directions greatly deviated from normal medical practice … . Groff v Kaleida Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 03249, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RESIDENT PHYSICIANS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted to the extent plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff, who underwent hip replacement surgery, suffered an eye injury either in the operating room or the recovery room:

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries he sustained to his left eye during hip replacement surgery performed at defendant St. Joseph’s Hospital (Hospital). Defendants Brett Greenky, M.D. and Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C. (SOS) were retained by plaintiff to perform the surgery, and defendants Mehtab Singh Bajwa, M.D., Tracie O’Shea, C.R.N.A., and the Anesthesia Group of Onondaga, P.C. (collectively, anesthesia defendants) were responsible for, inter alia, administering the anesthesia to plaintiff prior to the surgery. * * *

“Ordinarily, a plaintiff asserting a medical malpractice claim must demonstrate that the doctor deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury”… . “Where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant’s relation to it” … .”In a multiple defendant action in which a plaintiff relies on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff is not required to identify the negligent actor . . . That rule is particularly appropriate in a medical malpractice case such as this in which the plaintiff has been anesthetized” … . Here, plaintiff was under the care and control of Greenky, SOS and the anesthesia defendants during the surgery, and the Hospital immediately after the surgery. During that time, plaintiff was either under anesthesia and/or not fully awake or oriented to his surroundings. While O’Shea testified that there was no indication of an eye injury when she delivered plaintiff to the recovery room, hospital staff testified that plaintiff’s eye was noticeably irritated at that time. Consequently, there is an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained the eye injury in the operating room or in the recovery room. ” Plaintiff was rendered unconscious for the purpose of undergoing surgical treatment . . . [, and] it is manifestly unreasonable for [the defendants] to insist that [he] identify any one of them as the person who did the alleged negligent act’ ” … . White v Bajwa, 2018 NY Slip Op 03246, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (RES IPSA LOQUITUR,  PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR IN THE RECOVERY ROOM AND SUED SEVERAL DEFENDANTS RELYING ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ASPECT OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT WHO ALLOWED 16-YEAR-OLD NEIGHBOR TO WATCH PLAINTIFF’S FIVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER BY THE NEIGHBOR, THE CRIMINAL ACT SEVERED THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, NEIGHBOR HAD WATCHED THE CHILD BEFORE WITHOUT INCIDENT, NO RED FLAGS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant great-grandmother’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action was properly granted. Defendant was care for plaintiff’s five-year-old daughter, Isabella. When defendant went to bed she left Isabella with 16-year old Freeman, a neighbor who had watched Isabella more than 10 times in the past without incident. Freeman killed plaintiff’s daughter while defendant was asleep:

It is well established that ” an intervening intentional or criminal act will generally sever the liability of the original tort-feasor’ ” … . “The test to be applied is whether under all the circumstances the chain of events that followed [an allegedly] negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the [alleged] negligence” … . Thus, an intervening criminal act by a third party that is ” extraordinary under the circumstances’ ” or ” not foreseeable in the normal course of events’ ” breaks the causal chain and exonerates the original tortfeasor of liability … .

Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was negligent to some extent in supervising Isabella on the night in question, we nevertheless conclude, as a matter of law, that Freeman’s intentional murder of Isabella severed the chain of causation and eliminated any liability on defendant’s part (see id.). The record contains numerous undisputed facts supporting that conclusion. Freeman had previously watched Isabella on more than 10 occasions, all without incident, and they had even colored together before. Freeman and Isabella got along well for years before the murder, and defendant never observed any “red flags” or troubling indicia about Freeman generally, or his interactions with Isabella in particular. Defendant was unaware of any mental problems with Freeman. Indeed, there is no suggestion that Freeman had ever exhibited any questionable behavior or tendencies in the past, whether or not known to defendant. Tennant v Lascelle, 2018 NY Slip Op 03279, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANT WHO ALLOWED 16-YEAR-OLD NEIGHBOR TO WATCH PLAINTIFF’S FIVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER BY THE NEIGHBOR, THE CRIMINAL ACT SEVERED THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, NEIGHBOR HAD WATCH EDTHE CHILD BEFORE WITHOUT INCIDENT, NO RED FLAGS (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (DEFENDANT WHO ALLOWED 16-YEAR-OLD NEIGHBOR TO WATCH PLAINTIFF’S FIVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER BY THE NEIGHBOR, THE CRIMINAL ACT SEVERED THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, NEIGHBOR HAD WATCH EDTHE CHILD BEFORE WITHOUT INCIDENT, NO RED FLAGS (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL ACT (NEGLIGENCE, SEVERS LIABILITY, DEFENDANT WHO ALLOWED 16-YEAR-OLD NEIGHBOR TO WATCH PLAINTIFF’S FIVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER BY THE NEIGHBOR, THE CRIMINAL ACT SEVERED THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, NEIGHBOR HAD WATCH EDTHE CHILD BEFORE WITHOUT INCIDENT, NO RED FLAGS (FOURTH DEPT))

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