You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff insurer could not completely disclaim coverage of injuries suffered by the defendant at the insured home (owned by the McCabe’s). McCabe was convicted of assaulting and strangling the defendant. Defendant alleges that after McCabe assaulted her she fell over a tripping hazard in the McCabe home and was injured in the fall. Although the insurer can properly disclaim coverage for any injuries inflicted by McCabe’s intentional criminal conduct under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the insurer could not, at this early stage, disclaim coverage for any injuries that might have been caused by McCabe’s negligence (tripping hazard, failure to seek medical care, etc.):

Plaintiff asserts that, to convict McCabe, the criminal jury must have disbelieved his version of events. It is possible, however, that the jury disbelieved only some portions of his testimony … . The jury may have found it incredible that all of defendant’s facial and head injuries were caused when she tried to walk on her own, fell over a raised threshold in the doorway and hit her head on a cinder block wall during that fall. It is also possible that the jury believed that McCabe slammed defendant’s head into the ground or a wall, thereby causing some of her injuries, but the jury did not render any findings regarding what happened after the choking and slamming, such as whether defendant then got up, tried to walk and fell. To establish the convictions, it was unnecessary for the jury to have made findings regarding whether McCabe created a tripping hazard, allowed defendant to walk on her own after he had rendered her partially incapacitated or failed to seek medical help for her after the criminal assault. Hence, the issues as to insurance coverage and exclusions are not identical to the issues decided in McCabe’s criminal trial, and defendants here did not have a full and fair opportunity in the criminal trial to address some of the issues regarding McCabe’s negligence allegedly committed before and after the criminal assault. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no possible factual or legal basis to support a finding that some of defendant’s injuries were unintended by McCabe, so as to bar coverage under the policy exclusion … . Accordingly, collateral estoppel does not apply here, except as to the more narrow issues necessarily decided in the criminal trial, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment or a declaratory judgment at this early stage of this coverage action … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Chauncey McCabe, 2018 NY Slip Op 04416, Third Dept 6-14-18

​INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined no special relationship had been formed between the police department and plaintiff’s decedent, who was killed by her husband after she alerted the police he had contacted her in violation of an order of protection. The husband had previously taken plaintiff’s decedent and their two teenage daughters hostage and threatened them with knives and a shotgun. The police department was immune from suit:

Generally, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection” … . When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person … . The elements required to establish such a duty are: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that, while the police endeavored to contact the husband in order to instruct him not to further communicate with the decedent, the police did not promise to arrest the husband and the decedent could not have justifiably relied upon assurances of police protection … . Axt v Hyde Park Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 04298, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE, NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim, two years after the claim accrued, to add the correct address of the accident was properly denied. Plaintiff did not demonstrate the failure to provide the correct address did not prejudice the NYC Housing Authority (defendant):

A motion for leave to amend a notice of claim may be granted provided that the error in the original notice of claim was made in good faith and the municipality has not been prejudiced thereby … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden of demonstrating the absence of prejudice to the defendant arising from the plaintiff’s incorrect description of the accident location… . The plaintiff relied solely on the transient nature of the condition that allegedly caused her to fall to support her contention that the defendant did not suffer prejudice. The plaintiff did not allege that there were any witnesses to the incident or to the condition complained of, that the plaintiff received any medical assistance at the site, or that the accident was reported to anyone so as to give the defendant actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period or a reasonable time thereafter … . Jenkins v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT))

,

BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing a bench trial verdict in Supreme Court, determined defendant transit authority was not liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall on black ice upon exiting defendant’s bus:

The defendant, as a common carrier, “owe[d] a duty to alighting passenger[s] to stop at a place where [they] may safely disembark and leave the area” … , and towards that end “to exercise reasonable and commensurate care in view of the dangers to be apprehended” … . However, whether the defendant has breached its duty to provide a passenger a safe place to alight from the bus will depend on whether the bus driver could have observed the dangerous condition from the driver’s vantage point… . Here, there was no evidence that the bus driver was aware of or reasonably should have been aware of the ice in the roadway. The fact that it was cold and there was a pile of snow near the rear exit does not create a basis to conclude that the bus driver should have known of the dangerous condition … . Guzman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04310, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, BUSES, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (BUSES, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT))/BUSES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT))

BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT).

In a rear-end collision case involving three cars and motions and cross motions for summary judgment, the Second Department carefully laid out the burdens of proof on summary judgment motions in this context, as well as the applicability of comparative negligence in this context. The plaintiff’s car was stopped and was struck in the rear by the Ramos car. Ramos alleged the Nisanov car was on the shoulder and the collision happened when Ramos avoided collision with the Nisanov car. The Nisanov defendants alleged plaintiff was comparatively negligent. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in the action against Ramos, and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defense of the Nisamov defendants alleging plaintiff’s comparative negligence:

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment on a cause of action asserted in a complaint generally has the burden of establishing, prima facie, “all of the essential elements of the cause of action”… . By contrast, a defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing one of the plaintiff’s causes of action may generally sustain his or her prima facie burden “by negating a single essential element” of that cause of action … . To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party need only rebut the prima facie showing made by the moving party so as to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact … . …

Ramos’s version of the accident raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Dayan Nisanov was free from fault in the happening of the accident… . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the Nisanov defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident. …

Inasmuch as the deposition testimony of Dayan Nisanov and the plaintiff indicated that Dayan Nisanov was not negligent in the operation of his vehicle, while the deposition testimony of Ramos indicated that Dayan Nisanov was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, the plaintiff’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Dayan Nisanov was negligent and, if so, whether any such negligence caused or contributed to the accident … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the complaint insofar as asserted against the Nisanov defendants … .

Although a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of his or her own comparative negligence to be entitled to partial summary judgment as to a defendant’s liability… , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence  … . Poon v Nisanov, 2018 NY Slip Op 04365, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS  (BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BURDENS OF PROOF IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE INVOLVING THREE CARS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant-school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. And plaintiffs’ motion for an adverse or negative inference jury instruction based on the school district’s destruction of video surveillance evidence was properly granted. Infant plaintiff, a fifth grader, fell from the top of a set of monkey bars while attempting a dangerous cartwheel to a handstand. Apparently he successfully did the stunt just before and fell on his second attempt. The school was aware that infant plaintiff needed some extra supervision because of his past actions. The school preserved only the video of the failed second attempt of the stunt and nothing prior:

… [T]here are triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff’s alleged prior conduct and his reputation warranted more appropriate supervision, or heightened supervision, and, if so, whether such supervision would have prevented the accident … . The evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment did not establish, prima facie, that the accident occurred in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it… . Additionally, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not an applicable defense to the facts herein … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs demonstrated that the defendant had an obligation to preserve surveillance footage of the moments leading up to the infant plaintiff’s accident at the time of its destruction, but negligently failed to do so. Given the nature of the infant plaintiff’s injuries and the immediate documentation and investigation into the cause of the accident by the defendant’s employees, the defendant was clearly on notice of possible litigation and, thus, under an obligation to preserve any evidence that might be needed for future litigation … . The defendant failed to meet this obligation. The defendant acted negligently in unilaterally deciding to preserve only 24 seconds of footage and passively permitting the destruction of the remaining footage, portions of which were undisputedly relevant to the plaintiffs’ case. SM v Plainedge Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 04370, Second Dept 6-13-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE INFERENCE JURY CHARGE BASED UPON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESTRUCTION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the driver of a bus, Garcia, was not liable for suddenly applying the brakes pursuant to the emergency doctrine. A taxi had suddenly swerved into the bus’s lane:

The motion court properly invoked the emergency doctrine in finding that no issues of fact exist as to defendants’ negligence given plaintiff’s failure in opposition to adduce any evidence tending to show that the bus operator, defendant Garcia, created the emergency or could have avoided a collision with the nonparty livery taxi by taking some action other than applying his brakes … . The sudden unexpected swerving of the livery taxi into the bus’s lane required Garcia to take immediate action … . Garcia’s reaction of pressing the brakes with enough force to prevent an impact between his bus and the taxi and swerving the bus to the right was a reasonable response to the emergency that was not of his own making … . That Garcia was aware that taxis often cut buses off does not require a different result. Jones v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04281, First Dept 6-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (BUSES, BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (BUSES, (BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))/BRAKES (BUSES, BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES (FIRST DEPT))

,

DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined that a damages award in a negligence suit brought by a police officer receiving accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits must be offset by those benefits as a collateral source pursuant to CPLR 4545:

The … question presented … is whether a retired New York City police officer’s accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits are a collateral source that a court must offset against the injured retiree’s jury award for future lost earnings and pension. We hold that ADR benefits operate to replace earnings during the period when the retiree could have been employed, absent the disabling injury, and then serve as pension allotments, and so a court must offset a retiree’s projected ADR benefits against the jury award for both categories of economic loss. * * *

The statutory and regulatory scheme governing ADR benefits, and the text and legislative intent of CPLR 4545 … provide the basis for our conclusion that ADR benefits operate sequentially as payment for future lost earnings and pension benefits. Accordingly, on a motion pursuant to CPLR 4545, a court must apply ADR benefits, dollar-for-dollar, to offset the jury award for future lost earnings during the period they represent lost earnings, and future lost pension during the period they represent lost pension. Andino v Mills, 2018 NY Slip Op 04273, CtApp, 6-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE,  DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/DAMAGES (COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/COLLATERAL SOURCE (DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/CPLR 4545 (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE,  DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/POLICE OFFICERS  (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this snow plow traffic accident case should not have been granted. The snow plow driver was backing up below the crest of a hill and plaintiff was unable to brake in time when he crested the hill. The Fourth Department held that there was a question of fact whether the snow plow driver acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103:

Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that Marsh did not operate the snowplow with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and defendants thus were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles actually engaged in work on a highway”… . However, the statute does not protect snowplow drivers “from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others” (§ 1103 [b]). The operator of a snowplow acts with such “reckless disregard” when he or she ” acts in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that harm will follow’ ” … . The reckless disregard standard “requires a showing of more than a momentary judgment lapse” … .

Here, defendants’ submissions in support of the motion establish that Marsh had been a driver of the snowplow route for 15 years and was aware that an intersection where he could safely turn around was less than a quarter of a mile away. Despite that knowledge, Marsh drove the snowplow in reverse, in front of a hill that obscured his view of approaching traffic on a narrow, two-lane country road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour, without first sounding his horn in warning. Marsh’s deposition testimony that he did not realize that he had collided with plaintiff’s vehicle until several seconds after the collision raises a question of fact whether he was utilizing his rear view mirrors while traveling in reverse. Chase v Marsh, 2018 NY Slip Op 04231, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SNOW PLOWS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOW DRIVER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly prohibited cross examination of the plaintiff about his criminal history and plaintiff’s expert properly relied upon hearsay statements by plaintiff’s treating physician:

… [W]hile a civil litigant is granted broad authority to use the criminal convictions of a witness to impeach the credibility of that witness, the nature and extent of cross-examination, including with respect to criminal convictions, remains firmly within the discretion of the trial court … . …

It is well settled that ” opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness’ ” … . It is equally well settled, however, that an expert is permitted to offer opinion testimony based upon facts not in evidence where the material is ” of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion’ “… . “The professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule enables an expert witness to provide opinion evidence based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay, provided it is demonstrated to be the type of material commonly relied on in the profession’ “… , and “provided that it does not constitute the sole or principal basis for the expert’s opinion” … . Tornatore v Cohen, 2018 NY Slip Op 04145, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL HISTORY (EVIDENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (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