You are here: / NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY...

Search Results

/ ,

NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined neither the abutting property owner nor the city were entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The property owner did not demonstrate it did not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk and it did not have constructive knowledge of the defect. The city demonstrated it did not have written notice of the defect but did not demonstrate it did not create the defect:

Approximately 1½ months prior to the incident, the defendant City of Long Beach had excavated a portion of the sidewalk and backfilled it with a temporary patch, cordoning off the area with safety barrels and yellow caution tape. At the time of the incident, the safety barrels and yellow caution tape were not present. …

With respect to [the property owner], “[g]enerally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner of the abutting land” … . “The exceptions to this rule are when the landowner actually created the dangerous condition, made negligent repairs that caused the condition, created the dangerous condition through a special use of the sidewalk, or violated a statute or ordinance imposing liability on the abutting landowner for failing to maintain the sidewalk” … . The Charter of the City of Long Beach imposes a duty on landowners to maintain and repair abutting sidewalk … . …

The City's evidentiary submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether its work on the sidewalk immediately left it in a condition that was dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists … . Since the City did not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Trela v City of Long Beach, 2018 NY Slip Op 00190, Second Dept 1-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was properly granted because the third-party action was commenced four years after the suit began and would unduly delay the main action. The Second Department also determined that Supreme Court properly ordered that defendants disclose information about post-accident repairs in this stairway slip and fall case. Defendants had not disclosed the identity of the party which exercised control over the stairway:

“CPLR 1010 provides a safety valve for cases in which the third-party claim will unduly delay the determination of the main action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party'”… . Where the record indicates that a third-party plaintiff knowingly and deliberately delayed in commencing the third-party action, the Supreme Court acts within its discretion to dismiss the third-party complaint… . Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the court correctly granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint because the defendants deliberately and intentionally delayed commencing the third-party action for more than four years.

“CPLR 3101(a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” … . ” Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control'” … . Contrary to the defendants' contentions, an issue exists as to the identity of the entity responsible for the structural maintenance and control of the stairway. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly directed the defendants to produce discovery concerning the post-accident repairs. Soto v CBS Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00185, Second Dept 1-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS (SLIP AND FALL, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1010  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3101  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/REPAIRS, POST-ACCIDENT  (SLIP AND FALL, POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AS CAUSING UNDUE DELAY OF THE MAIN ACTION, DISCOVERY OF POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS OF STAIRWAY PROPERLY ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined an expert affidavit, saying the plaintiff pedestrian did not look for traffic before starting across the street, was speculative and did not raise a question of fact. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment properly granted:

The plaintiff testified that she looked in both directions and saw no vehicles. When the pedestrian signal changed in her favor, she waited “a bit,” looked around to her right and left three to four times, and then started walking while looking around as she walked. She had taken about 10 steps before the subject accident occurred. She did not see the defendants' vehicle prior to impact. The defendant driver testified at his deposition that he started his right turn and did not realize there was an accident until he felt contact, and heard his front-seat passenger yell that someone was there. He admitted that he never saw the plaintiff prior to contact with the front of his vehicle. He was cited for the traffic violation of failing to yield the right-of-way, and pleaded guilty to that violation.

In opposition, the defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert, stating that in his opinion, the plaintiff did not stop and wait for the light, and she did not look to the left or the right. Yuemei Wu v Automotive Rentals, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00192, Second Dept 1-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff's deposition testimony raised a question of fact whether plaintiff slipped and fell because of water on the floor near a sink in defendant's nursing home. The testimony was submitted by the defendant in support of its summary judgment motion. The defendant argued there was no proof water was on the floor. However, by submitting plaintiff's deposition testimony, which presented circumstantial evidence of water on the floor, defendant was unable to make out a prima facie case:

In moving for summary judgment, the defendant argued, inter alia, that there was no evidence that water was on the floor. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the plaintiff's deposition testimony, in which he testified that a nurse washes his roommate every morning, he has personally observed water spill on the floor when that happens, and he has complained about such condition at least 10 times in the past. The plaintiff further testified that he heard his roommate being cared for and someone walking back and forth from the sink to his roommate that morning, and that the roommate's shirt was wet after the accident. Such evidence, although circumstantial, permits a reasonable inference that the nurse washed the plaintiff's roommate that morning and spilled water on the floor, which proximately caused the plaintiff to fall… . Accordingly, the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden on its motion for summary judgment, and the Supreme Court properly denied its motion without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers … . Simion v Franklin Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00184, Second Dept 1-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE, BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

/

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CARDBOARD ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant property owners demonstrated they did not have actual or constructive notice of the cardboard on the sidewalk which caused plaintiff to slip and fall:

…[T]he … defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence of their trash collection and disposal practices, deposition testimony regarding the routine cleaning of the sidewalk each morning, and deposition testimony from several witnesses who walked through the area shortly before the plaintiff's accident and did not observe the condition that allegedly caused his fall … . In opposition, the plaintiff presented speculative arguments that were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Mandarano v PND, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00133, Second Dept 1-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CARDBOARD ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CARDBOARD ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants' motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when he jumped from a step in wooden stairs as it cracked. Defendants papers did not indicate when the stairs had last been inspected. Therefore the papers did not demonstrate the absence of constructive notice:

In a premises liability case, a defendant real property owner or a party in possession or control of real property who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence … . A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it … . To meet its prima facie burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … .

Here, while the evidence submitted in support of the subject branch of the defendants' motion may have demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged condition or have actual notice thereof, it failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of it. Indeed, the evidence submitted on their motion failed to demonstrate when the subject staircase was last inspected relative to the plaintiff's accident … . Hanney v White Plains Galleria, LP, 2018 NY Slip Op 00130, Second Dept 1-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the 42 USC 1983 cause of action against the municipality was properly dismissed. Plaintiff's decedent was killed when a handgun handled by an off-duty police officer (Pileggi) went off. The off-duty officer was convicted of manslaughter. The cause of action against the municipality was dismissed because there was no evidence the off-duty officer was acting under color of law and there was no policy which encouraged the reckless actions of the off-duty officer:

Where the conduct complained of was committed by an off-duty police officer, a constitutional violation may be found if, for instance, the officer, albeit off-duty, nonetheless is engaged in some activity arguably invoking the real or apparent power of the police department, or is engaged in the performance of duties prescribed generally for police officers… .. Here, the amended complaint alleged only, in the most conclusory fashion, that Pileggi was “acting under the color of law” when the shooting occurred. Since nothing in the amended complaint suggested that Pileggi identified himself or was recognizable as a police officer, or was otherwise engaged in any activity arguably invoking the real or apparent power of the police department, the seventh cause of action was fatally defective. In turn, because the plaintiffs failed sufficiently to allege that Pileggi was acting under color of state law, it follows that there was no factual basis upon which to hold the defendants liable under [Monell v New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 US 658] … .

In any event, even if the amended complaint had properly pleaded that Pileggi was acting under color of state law and not engaged in purely personal pursuits at the time of the shooting, the seventh cause of action was also fatally defective in that it failed to allege specific facts supporting the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants had a policy or custom of encouraging or sanctioning the type of reckless behavior that led to the shooting … . Everett v Eastchester Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 00129, Second Dept 1-10-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, WRONGFUL DEATH, OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, NEGLIGENCE,  OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983 (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, NEGLIGENCE, OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW WHEN HIS WEAPON DISCHARGED AND KILLED PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/

AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER’S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer (GEICO) did not present sufficient evidence to justify a temporary stay of arbitration and a framed issue hearing in this car-accident case. The insured, Tucci, alleged the accident in which he was severely injured was caused by a driver who struck Tucci's car while attempting to pass and then fled the scene. GEICO claimed  (1) Tucci failed to timely notify it of the accident and (2) there was no evidence of contact with the other car:

” The party seeking a stay of arbitration has the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay'” … . “Thereafter, the burden shifts to the party opposing the stay to rebut the prima facie showing”… . Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue … .

Here, GEICO failed to show the existence of evidentiary facts regarding Tucci's failure to satisfy the reporting requirement or whether there was physical contact with a hit-and-run vehicle, since, as to those issues, it only provided the unsupported, conclusory assertions of its attorney … . Matter of Government Employees Ins. Co. v Tucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00142, Second Dept 1-10-18

INSURANCE LAW (STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRATION (INSURANCE LAW, STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (INSURANCE LAW, STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT)

/

ALTHOUGH FOSTER MOTHER ENTITLED TO FOSTER CARE BENEFITS AT THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE AFTER THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED AS AUTISTIC, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD OF FOSTER CARE BEFORE THE DIAGNOSIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined petitioner's (foster mother's) application for retroactive foster care benefits at the “exceptional” rate for the period before the child was diagnosed as autistic was properly denied:

The OCFS's [Office of Children and Family Services'] determination that the child did not meet the relevant criteria to qualify for “exceptional” rate foster care payments during the first 22 months she was in the foster mother's care is supported by substantial evidence, and is not arbitrary and capricious. It is undisputed that during this time no qualified psychiatrist or psychologist certified that the child had severe behavioral problems that required high levels of individualized supervision in the home (18 NYCRR 427.6[d][3]), and that no physician had certified that she required around-the-clock care or had been diagnosed by a physician with a qualifying illness such as autism … . The child was diagnosed with autism by a physician, her pediatrician, in July of 2014, and respondents correctly found that she was entitled to exceptional rate benefits following the time she was diagnosed … . In the absence of a diagnosis from the time the child was placed with the foster mother until the time of her diagnosis 22 months later, however, respondents correctly denied the foster mother's application for exceptional rate benefit … . Matter of Pascall v Poole, 2018 NY Slip Op 00099, First Dept 1-9-18

FAMILY LAW (FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER MOTHER ENTITLED TO FOSTER CARE BENEFITS AT THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE AFTER THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED AS AUTISTIC, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD OF FOSTER CARE BEFORE THE DIAGNOSIS (FIRST DEPT))/FOSTER CARE ( ALTHOUGH FOSTER MOTHER ENTITLED TO FOSTER CARE BENEFITS AT THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE AFTER THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED AS AUTISTIC, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD OF FOSTER CARE BEFORE THE DIAGNOSIS (FIRST DEPT))/AUTISM (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER MOTHER ENTITLED TO FOSTER CARE BENEFITS AT THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE AFTER THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED AS AUTISTIC, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD OF FOSTER CARE BEFORE THE DIAGNOSIS (FIRST DEPT))/EXCEPTIONAL RATE (FOSTER CARE BENEFITS, AUTISM, ALTHOUGH FOSTER MOTHER ENTITLED TO FOSTER CARE BENEFITS AT THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE AFTER THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED AS AUTISTIC, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD OF FOSTER CARE BEFORE THE DIAGNOSIS (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's employment discrimination action pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the proffered reason for her termination was pretextual. Plaintiff, who suffered from brain tumors, was on medical leave when she was told by her employer she needed to apply for disability benefits from the Hartford (an insurer). Although plaintiff tried to apply for the disability benefits, the company allegedly based her termination on her failure to timely obtain the disability benefits:

Defendant argues that it met its prima facie burden of establishing a nondiscriminatory motive for its actions by offering evidence that it terminated plaintiff's employment because she did not promptly file a disability claim with the Hartford, as directed. Defendant maintains that although the Hartford may have given plaintiff confusing information about whether she could file a claim later, that phone call was not reported to defendant, and that when defendant decided to terminate her employment, it relied on the Hartford's representation that no claim had been filed. However, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence in the record raises a material issue of fact as to whether defendant's stated reason for terminating her employment was a pretext and whether defendant failed to engage in an interactive process and reasonable accommodation analysis prior thereto … . Watson v Emblem Health Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 00123, First Dept 1-9-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYC)  (EMPLOYMENT LAW,  QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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