Court of Claims – Page 5 – New York Appellate Digest

Court of Claims, Evidence, Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SNOW PLOW WAS “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE APPLIED; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the state’s motion for summary judgment in this snow-plow traffic-accident case should not have been granted because there were questions of fact concerning whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for snow plows was applicable. Although the “reckless disregard” standard may still apply where, as here, the snow plow is raised, the snow plow must be salting the road or otherwise “working its run” at the time of the accident:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including [snowplows], which are ‘actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . , and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care” … . The exemption “applies only when such work is in fact being performed at the time of the accident” … , which includes a snowplow engaged in plowing or salting a road … . Although the exemption does “not apply if the snowplow . . . [is] merely traveling from one route to another route” … , a snowplow may be “engaged in work even if the plow blade [is] up at the time of the accident and no salting [is] occurring” when the snowplow is nevertheless “working [its] ‘run’ or ‘beat’ at the time of the accident” … .

… [W]e conclude that the State failed to establish as a matter of law that the snowplow was “actually engaged in work on a highway” at the time of the accident (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b] …). Lynch-Miller v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05640, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here the snow plow was raised when the traffic accident occurred. There were questions of fact about whether the snow plow was salting the road or otherwise working its run when at the time. Therefore, there were questions of fact about whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for vehicles engaged in highway work applied.

October 7, 2022

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Court of Claims

ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED WHERE THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED BY A VALID CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) the Court of Claims, determined the quantum meruit cause of action should have been dismissed because the action was based upon a valid contract:

Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Claims, that branch of the State’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the eleventh cause of action, which sought damages based upon a “total cost,” or quantum meruit, method of recovery, should have been granted, on the ground that parties to a valid contract cannot seek damages in quantum meruit as an alternative to a breach of contract claim arising out of the same subject matter … . Quantum meruit may be pleaded in the alternative where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract, or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue … . Here, there clearly was a valid contract, and the amount in dispute was incurred pursuant to the contract. Further, the claims did not involve a qualitative change in the nature of the work which was outside the contemplation of the contract … . Tutor Perini Corp. v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05556, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Although a quantum meruit cause of action may be pled as an alternative to a breach of contract cause of action, it must be dismissed if the underlying issues are addressed by a contract found to be valid.

October 5, 2022

Court of Claims, Labor Law-Construction Law

CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WHEN A TRUCK STRUCK THE BASKET OF THE MAN LIFT SHE WAS USING; THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT DIDN’T FALL FROM THE BASKET DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action should not have been dismissed. Claimant was in the basket of a man lift when a car carrier (truck) struck the basket causing it to “ricochet back and forth/” The fact that claimant didn’t fall from the basket did not take the incident outside the scope of Labor Law 240(1):

The Court of Claims erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “The fact that the plaintiff did not actually fall from the [basket] is irrelevant as long as the ‘harm directly flow[ed] from the application of the force of gravity to [her] person'” … . Johnsen v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04540, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here claimant was in the basket of a man lift when a truck struck the basket causing it to “ricochet back and forth.” The fact that claimant didn’t fall from the basket did not support the dismissal of the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Labor Laq 240(1) requires that the injury directly flow from the “application of gravity” to the person.

July 13, 2022

Court of Claims, Immunity, Negligence

THE NYS GAMING COMMISSION’S DUTIES TO INSPECT HORSES AND EQUIPMENT BEFORE A HARNESS RACE ARE PROPRIETARY, NOT GOVERMENTAL, IN NATURE; THEREFORE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES APPLY AND THE IMMUNITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE; DURING THE RACE A HORSE FELL AND CLAIMANT’S HORSE COLLIDED WITH THE FALLEN HORSE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE FALLEN HORSE’S EQUIPMENT AND WHETHER THE HORSE EXHIBITED INDICATIONS HE WAS LAME; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILTY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE; REGULATIONS RE: THE INSPECTION OF HORSES AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE IMPUTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a comprehensive decision which should be consulted on the issues of governmental immunity, assumption of the risk and constructive notice, reversing Supreme Court, determined the New York State Gaming Commission was exercising a proprietary, not governmental, function when its employees inspected a harness-racing horse’s (Mister Miami’s) equipment and failed to scratch the horse, which exhibited indications he was “lame,” from the upcoming race. Claimant was injured when, during the race, claimant’s horse collided with Mister Miami after Mister Miami fell. Because the state’s alleged negligence stemmed from a proprietary function, ordinary negligence principles applied and there was no need to show a special relationship between claimant and the state, and the governmental immunity affirmative defense was not available. There were questions of fact whether the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine applied because the state may have acted to unreasonably increase the risk. As for notice, the regulations requiring the state to inspect the horses and equipment allowed the state’s constructive notice of the dangerous condition to be imputed:

… [T]he duties of [the state’s] officials are fundamentally intertwined with the operation of each and every race and, while such tasks may tangentially relate to the overall function of ensuring fair and honest gambling in this state, they are more specifically directed to the goal of ensuring the safety of the participants in those races … . … [I]t is apparent that at least part of the Commission’s role in harness racing is to work hand in hand with the private racing industry to further the state’s goal of “deriv[ing] a reasonable revenue for the support of government” … . * * *

… [W]e find that there are triable issues as to whether Commission officials adequately performed their duties and whether their alleged failures unreasonably increased the risk beyond a level generally inherent in harness track racing … . …

Because [the inspection] duties were imposed upon the Commission officials by regulation, constructive notice of Mister Miami’s health and equipment issues that would have been observable during those inspections may be imputed … . Bouchard v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04202, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This opinion has valuable discussions of; (1) how to analyze whether a government is exercising a governmental function (to which the “special relationship” and “governmental immunity” doctrines apply) or a proprietary function (to which ordinary negligence principles apply); (2) the assumption of the risk doctrine; and (3) the imputation of constructive notice when there are regulations mandating inspections which allegedly would have revealed the dangerous condition. Here claimant was injured during a harness race when his horse collided with a fallen horse. The complaint alleged the NYS Gaming Commission did not inspect the fallen horse and the fallen horse’s equipment prior to the race as required by the relevant regulations.

June 30, 2022

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Court of Claims, Evidence, Negligence

CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT OF FULL EXPERT-WITNESS DISCLOSURE FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN; THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR AN UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant’s treating physician (Hopson) in this personal injury case should have been allowed to testify as an expert, despite the failure to comply with full expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101. The Third Department is the only department which requires such full expert disclosure by a treating physician and claimant’s attorney had not practiced in the Third Department:

There is no dispute that claimant failed to comply with the expert disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) in identifying Hopson as a witness. Nevertheless, we disagree with the Court of Claims’ finding that claimant’s excuse was unreasonable. The situation here mirrors that in Schmitt v Oneonta City Sch. Dist. (151 AD3d 1254), where we accepted the explanation of the plaintiffs’ attorney that he was “unaware of this Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and the corresponding need to file an expert disclosure for a treating physician, and the record [was] otherwise devoid of any indication that counsel’s failure to file such disclosure was willful” … . The same holds true here, as claimant’s attorney revealed that she practices law in a different judicial department and candidly conceded that she was unaware of this Court’s interpretation that the statute requires expert disclosure for treating physicians. There is nothing in the record calling into question the veracity of counsel’s representations and no basis to conclude that the noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) was willful. As such, the court erred in precluding Hopson’s testimony as an expert witness…. . Freeman v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 03559, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Only the Third Department requires full expert-witness disclosure for a treating physician.

June 2, 2022

Court of Claims, Labor Law-Construction Law

CLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimants’ should have been allowed to file a late notice of claim in this construction accident case. The delay in filing was minimal, claimants made a sufficient showing the defendants were not prejudiced by the delay and defendants did not demonstrate prejudice:

The claimants showed that any delay in ascertaining actual notice of all of the essential facts underlying the claims was minimal … , and that the defendants were provided with an adequate opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claims in light of, among other things, the information contained in an accident report and a medical release, which were both prepared by the defendants’ general contractor on the date of the accident…. . …

… [T]he defendants failed to come forward with “a particularized evidentiary showing that [they] will be substantially prejudiced” if the late claims are permitted … . Schnier v New York State Thruway Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 03267, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: The claimants adequately demonstrated defendants in this construction-accident case were not prejudiced by the minimal delay in filing the notice of claim and defendants were unable to demonstrate any prejudice as they had time to investigate the incident after timely receiving the accident report. Claimants’ motion for leave to file and serve a late notice of claim should have been granted.

May 18, 2022

Court of Claims, Criminal Law

FOR PURPOSES OF CLAIMANT’S ACTION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT, THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACQUITTAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claimant was retried and acquitted on criminal charges within the meaning of the Court of Claims Act in this action seeking damages for wrongful conviction and imprisonment:

… [T]he court erred in determining that claimant “was not retried.” To the contrary, the record establishes that “a new trial was ordered” and held inasmuch as the jury was sworn, the parties made opening statements, the prosecution called various witnesses and, following the close of the prosecution’s case, the criminal court granted claimant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal … . …

… [T]he court erred in determining that a trial order of dismissal pursuant to CPL 290.10 was not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty, i.e., an acquittal, for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 8-b (3) (b) (ii). Considering the remedial purpose of the statute (see § 8-b [1]) and the fact that an acquittal is a “useful and relevant indicator of innocence” … , … [T]here is no meaningful distinction for purposes of a claimant’s threshold showing between an acquittal by a trier of fact due to failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … and a trial order of dismissal due to legally insufficient evidence … . Owens v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07374, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

December 23, 2021

Court of Claims, Negligence

THE STATE BREACHED ITS DUTY TO PROTECT AN INMATE FROM AN ATTACK BY OTHER INMATES; COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims and granting judgment in favor of the claimant, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant, an inmate, demonstrated the state was negligent in failing to protect him from an attack by other inmates:

… [C]laimant—who had an unblemished disciplinary record—cooperated with an investigation by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) into an illegal sexual relationship between a female correction officer (Parkinson) and several male inmates. Among the inmates involved in the illegal relationship was a gang leader inside the prison. During the course of the investigation, a state official left documents evidencing claimant’s cooperation where an inmate porter could see them, and the porter shared that information with other inmates, including the gang leader implicated in the investigation. The gang leader then collaborated with other inmates to instigate a brutal assault on claimant. Prior to the attack, one of the inmates informed Parkinson of the plan. * * *

… [T]he trial evidence proves decisively that defendant either knew or should have known that claimant was at serious risk of being attacked as a result of his cooperation. Specifically, defendant knew that claimant had just reported an illegal sexual relationship between Parkinson and an inmate gang leader, and defendant’s failure to safeguard the investigatory file allowed that fact to spread through the inmate population. As defendant’s own witnesses testified at trial, the risk to an inmate in claimant’s position under these circumstances would have been obvious and well-known. Notwithstanding the reasonably foreseeable risk to claimant, defendant failed to take any steps to protect him. In short, given Parkinson’s prior retaliation, the gang leader’s influence, motive, and ability to instigate an attack, and defendant’s failure to safeguard the facility’s investigatory file, we conclude that defendant’s decision to simply leave claimant in his dormitory, surrounded by associates of the gang leader and guarded only by Parkinson, constituted a grave breach of its duty to use “reasonable care under the circumstances” to protect an inmate in its custody … . McDevitt v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04795, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

August 26, 2021

Court of Claims, Evidence, Negligence

THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A PLASTIC CHAIR IN THE RECREATIONAL ROOM OF DEFENDANT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; THE CHAIR COLLAPSED WHILE CLAIMANT WAS SITTING IN IT; THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CHAIR; COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to a plastic chair in the recreational room of a state correctional facility. Claimant alleged the back legs of the chair broke off at the same time causing him to fall to the concrete floor:

… [T]he evidence of defendant’s exclusive control, under the circumstances of this case, was sufficiently established … . Indeed, “[a]s a species of circumstantial proof, . . . res ipsa [loquitor] does not depend on a showing that the instrumentality causing the harm was within the defendant’s exclusive control; it is enough that the degree of dominion be such that the defendant can be identified with probability as the party responsible for the injury produced” … .

… [D]efendant was “under an affirmative duty to use reasonable care in making sure that the chair it provided was safe for the purpose for which it was to be used. That [claimant] had temporary possession of the chair does not negate the inference that its sudden collapse, under normal usage, was most likely caused by defendant’s negligence” … . Moreover, defendant, who no doubt had sole and exclusive possession of the chair immediately after the accident, failed to offer any evidence to support an inference of any other possible explanation for the accident … . Draper v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04163, Third Dept 7-1-21

July 1, 2021

Battery, Court of Claims, Employment Law

CLAIMANT-INMATE’S ACTION AGAINST THE STATE ALLEGING HE WAS BEATEN BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE OFFICERS WERE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE BEATING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing the Court of Claims, over a two-justice dissent, determined the claimant-inmate’s action alleging claimant was beaten by corrections officers after lodging a complaint against one of the officers (Poupore) should not have been dismissed. The Court of Claims ruled the state could not be liable for the beating because the officers were not acting within the scope of their employment:

… [T]he undisputed evidence demonstrated that the incident took place at Clinton Correctional Facility, that the correction officers involved were on duty and that claimant’s encounter with Poupore by the stairway was occasioned by claimant having been called downstairs for an interview with Wood [Poupre’s supervisor] … . … [T]estimony from defendant’s witnesses demonstrated that pat frisks are routinely conducted prior to inmate interviews and that Poupore was instructed to pat frisk claimant prior to his interview. Accepting claimant’s version of events as true, Poupore struck claimant during the course of that employer-sanctioned pat frisk, which then led to the involvement of additional correction officers. If claimant’s account is credited, Poupore’s intentional tortious act of punching claimant in the head was not so divorced from the performance of his pat-frisk duties so as to preclude a finding that he was acting within the scope of employment. Nor can we conclude as a matter of law that the ensuing altercation was wholly outside the scope of the additional correction officers’ duties. Galloway v State of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 02855, Third Dept 5-6-21

May 6, 2021