Page 986 – New York Appellate Digest

/ Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice well-reasoned dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from the A-frame ladder. Plaintiff testified that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism:

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). “In order to establish his entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law, plaintiff was required to show that the statute was violated and the violation proximately caused his injury’ “… . Plaintiff did not know why the ladder wobbled or shifted, and he acknowledged that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism, despite having been aware of the need to do so. We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden on the motion. “[T]here is a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a fact question—that there was no statutory violation and that plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident” … .

From the dissent: The fact that plaintiff could not identify why the ladder shifted does not undermine his entitlement to partial summary judgment because a plaintiff who falls from a ladder that “malfunction[s] for no apparent reason” is entitled to “a presumption that the ladder . . . was not good enough to afford proper protection” … . Although plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not recall whether he checked the positioning of the ladder or checked that it was “locked into place,” he also testified that the ladder was upright and “fully open” near the middle of a small room, and we conclude that it would be unduly speculative for a jury to infer from plaintiff’s testimony that the sole proximate cause of the accident was his alleged failure to check its positioning or its locking mechanism … . Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00712, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed, but the common law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, a funeral director, was inspecting a grave which had been covered with plywood when he stepped on the plywood and fell into the grave. The Labor Law causes of action did not apply because plaintiff was not engaged in any relevant work at the time of the fall. However there were questions of fact whether defendants created or had notice of a dangerous condition:

With respect to Labor Law § 240 (1), defendants met their burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff “was neither among the class of workers . . . nor performing the type of work . . . that Labor Law § 240 (1) is intended to protect” … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact… . Defendants further established that plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of Labor Law § 241 (6) inasmuch as his inspection of the grave site in his capacity as a funeral director had no direct connection with the alteration or excavation work … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Finally, the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim because, while that statute is not limited to construction work … , it does not apply where, as here, the plaintiff was “not permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure at the accident site” … .

… [D]efendants “were required to establish as a matter of law that they did not exercise any supervisory control over the general condition of the premises or that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the premises”… . Defendants’ own submissions establish that each had some level of supervisory control over the premises. Moreover, it is undisputed that [defendant] Wolcott dug the grave and placed plywood over it, thus creating and having actual notice of the condition that plaintiffs allege was dangerous. Further, while [defendant] Oakwood established that it did not create the dangerous condition, it “failed to establish as a matter of law that the condition was not visible and apparent or that it had not existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit [Oakwood] or [its] employees to discover and remedy it,” and it thereby failed to establish that it lacked constructive notice of it … . Solecki v Oakwood Cemetery Assn., 2018 NY Slip Op 00692, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Attorneys, Mental Hygiene Law, Municipal Law

PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court should not have directed the petitioner, Upstate University Hospital, to pay the court-appointed attorney’s fees and the court evaluator’s fees in this proceeding to appoint a guardian for an alleged incapacitated person (AIP). The petition to appoint a guardian was successful and the AIP did not die during the proceedings. The court-appointed attorney should be paid pursuant to the County Law article 18-B, and the court did not have the authority to require petitioner to pay the court evaluator’s fee. The Fourth Department further determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint Mental Hygiene Legal Services to represent the AIP:

Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law provides that the court may appoint an attorney to represent the AIP, and that petitioner may be directed to pay for such services where the petition is dismissed or the AIP dies before the proceeding is concluded … . In all cases, “[t]he court shall determine the reasonable compensation for the mental hygiene legal service or any attorney appointed pursuant to” that statute … . Nevertheless, “the statute is silent as to the source of funds for payment of counsel [where, as here,] the AIP is indigent”… . Despite that silence, it is well settled that “the Legislature, by providing for the assignment of counsel for indigents in the Mental Hygiene Law, intended, by necessary implication, to authorize the court to compensate counsel” … , and it is likewise well settled that the court should direct that requests for such compensation should be determined “in accordance with the procedures set forth in County Law article 18-B” … . Thus, the court erred in directing petitioner to pay those fees.

We also agree with the contention of petitioner in appeal No. 3 that the court erred in directing it to pay the fees requested by the court evaluator. Where, as here, a court appoints a court evaluator pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.09 (a) and then “grants a petition, the court may award a reasonable compensation to a court evaluator, including the mental hygiene legal service, payable by the estate of the allegedly incapacitated person” … . The statute further provides that a court may direct petitioner to pay for the services of a court evaluator only where the court “denies or dismisses a petition,” or the AIP “dies before the determination is made in the petition” … . Therefore, “notwithstanding Supreme Court’s broad discretion to award reasonable fees in Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceedings . . . , [inasmuch as] petitioner was successful [and the AIP is alive], the court was without authority to ascribe responsibility to petitioner for payment of the court evaluator’s fees” … . Matter of Buttiglieri (Ferrel J.B.), 2018 NY Slip Op 00738, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/COURT EVALUATORS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, FEES, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Municipal Law, Negligence

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged that work done on the area (between the curb and the sidewalk) where she fell created a dangerous condition. The work was done a year before the fall. The city would be liable only if the dangerous condition was immediately created by the work, not if the condition developed over time:

Although plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant may have created the sinkhole by improperly excavating and backfilling the excavated area, we agree with defendant that plaintiff failed to proffer evidence that the depression “was present immediately after completion of the work” … . Indeed, it is well settled that the affirmative negligence exception ” does not apply to conditions that develop over time’ ” … . Burke v City of Rochester, 2018 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Municipal Law, Negligence

CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant city’s motion for summary judgment in this drainage-system maintenance case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the city’s failure to maintain a storm drainage system caused flooding. The city argued the flooding was caused by an “act of God.” The Fourth Department noted that city’s own papers raised a question of fact whether the failure to clean the system regularly caused the flooding:

Defendant submitted the affidavits of its commissioner of public works and its senior engineer, who averred that there is a “trash rack” located in the rear of plaintiff’s property that is used to filter debris from the water entering the underground drainage system from a nearby ravine. If too much debris builds up in the trash rack, it will block the flow of water into the drainage system and flood plaintiff’s premises. According to the deposition testimony of a member of plaintiff limited liability company, which testimony defendant also submitted, such flooding occurred previously in 2006 and caused severe property damage. The senior engineer averred that, to prevent flooding on plaintiff’s property, defendant’s employees periodically inspect and maintain the ravine. Plaintiff’s member, however, testified that defendant’s employees rarely came to the property to clear debris from the trash rack. 2305 Genesee St., LLC v City of Utica, 2018 NY Slip Op 00745, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Municipal Law, Negligence

VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, noted that verbal notice to the city about potholes, even if reduced to writing, does not satisfy the written notice prerequisite for the city’s liability:

Defendant established that it lacked prior written notice of a defective or unsafe condition in the road, and plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that an exception to the general rule is applicable… . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it is well established that “verbal or telephonic communication to a municipal body that is reduced to writing [does not] satisfy a prior written notice requirement” … . Tracy v City of Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 00704, Fourth Dept 2-2-1

MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POTHOLES, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POTHOLES, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, POTHOLES, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/POTHOLES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/WRITTEN NOTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Animal Law, Negligence

PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this car-animal accident case should not have been granted. Although, based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the presence of defendants’ black angus bull in the roadway may have constituted negligence, plaintiff did not demonstrate she could not have avoided the accident by lowering her speed on that dark and rainy night:

Cattle are classified as “domestic animal[s]” in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7), and it is well established that “a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal—i.e., a domestic animal as that term is defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7)—is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept” … . Here, “defendants were in exclusive control of the [bull] and the fences surrounding the pasture where [it was] kept” and, because cattle “do not generally wander unattended on public streets in the absence of negligence”… , we conclude that the court properly inferred defendants’ negligence as a starting point in determining their motion.

We further conclude that defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence inasmuch as they failed to submit proof that “the animal’s presence on the [road] was not caused by [their] negligence” … , or “that something outside of [defendants’] control” allowed the bull to escape … . …

Plaintiff’s burden on her motion was to establish both that defendants were negligent as a matter of law, and that she was free of comparative fault … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff met her burden with respect to defendants’ alleged negligence, we conclude that she failed to meet her burden with respect to her own alleged comparative negligence. … [T]here is an issue of fact whether slower travel would have enabled plaintiff to avoid the collision, and that issue must be determined by a jury … . Catalano v Heiden Val. Farms, 2018 NY Slip Op 00759, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (ESCAPED ANIMALS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ESCAPED ANIMALS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, reinstated the jury’s damages award in this personal injury case. Plaintiffs moved to set aside the damages award unless the defendant stipulated to an increased amount and Supreme Court granted the motion. The Fourth Department explained that the jury was free to disregard expert opinion and the jury could have concluded that plaintiff had exaggerated her injuries or that the injuries were preexisting:

“It is well settled that the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question for the jury . . . , the judgment of which is entitled to great deference based upon its evaluation of the evidence, including conflicting expert testimony” … .. Thus, “even in cases where there is evidence which could support a conclusion different from that of a jury, its verdict will still be accorded great deference and respect so long as there is credible evidence to support its interpretation” … . In addition, ” a jury is at liberty to reject an expert’s opinion if it finds the facts to be different from those which formed the basis for the opinion or if, after careful consideration of all the evidence in the case, it disagrees with the opinion’ “… . In short, “[w]here the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … . Mecca v Buffalo Niagara Convention Ctr. Mgt. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00735, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION, DAMAGES, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (DAMAGES, LAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Court of Claims, Negligence

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying (reversing) the Court of Claims, determined the “dangerous condition” cause of action brought on behalf of plaintiff’s decedent should not have been dismissed. The driver passed two signs indicating the bridge ahead was closed, drove through a sign that was in the middle of the road flanked by barricades, and then struck a beam at the entrance to the bridge which spanned the width of the bridge. The driver was killed instantly but the car continued and struck another similar beam spanning the other end of the bridge, injuring plaintiff’s decedent (who died the next day). The plaintiff alleged, under a “second impact” theory, the beams, which were welded at a height which allowed a vehicle to pass under under them, constituted a dangerous condition which was the proximate cause of death. The Fourth Department held the beams constituted a dangerous condition as a matter of law:

… [T]he court erred in dismissing the claim insofar as it alleges that defendants created a dangerous condition that constituted a proximate cause of decedent’s injuries. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Although defendant State of New York is not an insurer of its roads and highways … , it “has an obligation to provide and maintain adequate and proper barriers along its highways” … . Here, we conclude that defendants’ decision to weld a steel box beam across the front of the Bridge, at a height that allowed a motor vehicle to proceed under the beam, constituted the creation of a dangerous condition as a matter of law … .

… [C]aimant proceeded under a “second-impact theory whereby she contended, not that [defendants] caused the accident, but that [their] negligence . . . was [a] proximate cause of . . . decedent’s injury”… . The fact that no negligent act of defendants caused the vehicle to collide with the steel box beam is irrelevant. The point to be addressed is whether the steel box beam was a substantial factor in aggravating decedent’s injuries and causing his death … . Reames v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00713, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/SECOND IMPACT THEORY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

/ Evidence, Negligence

POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this car-bicycle accident case was properly denied. The police report was not authenticated and was not submitted in admissible form, so it could not be considered. The defendant driver failed to eliminate a question of fact whether she was comparatively negligent for failing to see what should have been seen:

Although “reports of police officers made upon their own observation and while carrying out their police duties are generally admissible in evidence”… , the report in this case was inadmissible because it was “not authenticated” and, “[b]ecause the report was not submitted in evidentiary form, it should not have been considered on the summary judgment motion” … . Here … the parties failed to “provide[] an acceptable excuse” for failing to tender the evidence in admissible form … .

With respect to the merits, ” [w]hether a plaintiff [or defendant] is comparatively negligent is almost invariably a question of fact and is for the jury to determine in all but the clearest cases’ ” … . In support of their motion, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of defendant, which raised a question of fact regarding her attentiveness as she drove her vehicle… . It is well settled that every driver of a motor vehicle has “the common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen . . . through the proper use of his [or her] senses’ ” … , and that “a motorist is required to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists, . . . and to operate the vehicle with reasonable care to avoid colliding with anyone on the road” … . Here, the evidence submitted by defendants established that defendant had an unobstructed view of the street as plaintiff’s bicycle approached her vehicle, yet she failed to see him or his bicycle prior to the collision. Thus, we conclude that defendants “failed to establish that there was nothing [defendant] could do to avoid the accident and therefore failed to establish that she was free of comparative fault” … . Chilinski v Maloney, 2018 NY Slip Op 00744, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (EVIDENCE, POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/BICYCLES (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))

February 02, 2018

Search Results

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

PETITIONER, UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (AIP’S) COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S FEES OR THE COURT EVALUATOR’S FEE IN THIS SUCCESSFUL MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN (FOURTH DEPT).

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT).

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.