You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, , , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE DEMONSTRATING IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED PROPENSITY TO SEXUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN; THEREFORE ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was not entitled to summary judgment in this case alleging sexual abuse by a teacher in 2013 – 2014. A question of fact had been raised about whether the school district knew or should have known of the teacher’s alleged propensity to abuse children: “Although […]

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS, AS WELL AS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for breach of contract based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In addition, the Second Department held that the promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment causes of action did not duplicate the breach of contract causes of action: […]

, , , ,

THE FAILURE TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE GIVEN AN INTERROGATORY ON THE THEORY THE SURGEON IMPROPERLY PERFORMED A PROCEDURE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR ( SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial on one of the theories of negligence, determined plaintiff’s request that the jury be given an interrogatory should have been granted: … [T]he Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s request that the jury be given an interrogatory asking whether [defendant] Lazzaro departed from good and accepted standards […]

, ,

FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to prove compliance with the notice requirements in RPAPL 1304 required reversal in this foreclosure action: … [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. To that end, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of Sarah L. Stonehocker, a vice president […]

,

PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF WIFE ASSUMED FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOUSEHOLD CHORES, COOKING, TRANSPORTIING THE CHILDREN, AND CARED FOR THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WARRANTED A $40,000 AWARD FOR LOSS OF SERVICES; THE JURY HAD AWARDED $0 DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding for a new trial unless the parties stipulate to a damages award of $40,000 for loss of services, determined the jury’s award of $0 damages constituted a material deviation from reasonable compensation: Plaintiff wife testified that after the injured plaintiff’s accident, she assumed full responsibility for household chores, cooking, and transportation […]

, ,

DEFENDANT’S 2013 GUILTY PLEA WAS DEEMED DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO ENSURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CHARGE; BECAUSE THE 2013 CONVICTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED, IT CANNOT BE A BASIS, IN 2020, FOR SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT PREDICATE FELON; SENTENCE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for resentencing, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a persistent violent predicate felon based on a 2013 guilty plea because the plea to attempted burglary second was constitutionally invalid. In the plea allocution, defendant indicated he formulated the intent to steal after he entered the dwelling, prompting […]

,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO THE INCARCERATED DEFENDANT; DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order to show cause was not properly served on the incarcerated defendant, requiring vacation of the default judgment: “The method of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with” … . “The failure to give a […]

PLYWOOD DELIBERATELY PLACED AS A TEMPORARY FLOOR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRT AND DEBRIS” OR “SCATTERED TOOLS AND MATERIALS” OR “SHARP PROTECTIONS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING IN A HOLE IN THE PLYWOOD AND FALLING IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action because the plywood used for temporary flooring, which had a hole in it which caused plaintiff to fall, was not “dirt and debris” or “scattered tools or materials” or “sharp projections” within the meaning of the Industrial Code: … Industrial […]

, ,

ACCORDING TO THE MEDICAL RECORDS, PLAINTIFF PROVIDED HER TREATING PHYSICIAN WITH A DESCRIPTION OF HER SLIP AND FALL WHICH DIFFERED FROM HER DESCRIPTION IN HER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON THE PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena served on plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Monfett, in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The medical records revealed plaintiff told the treating physician she tripped and fell breaking up a fight in a subway station. Plaintiff testified she […]

,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF RENTING OUT THE LIMOUSINE, FAILED TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD REPAIR; BRAKE FAILURE CAUSED A CRASH WHICH KILLED 20 PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, affirmed the manslaughter convictions of the defendant who was responsible for renting out a limousine which experienced catastrophic brake failure resulting in the deaths of 17 passengers, the driver and two pedestrians: The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Each argument raised by […]

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