You are here: / Negligence
, ,

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS.

The Second Department determined the defendants had demonstrated at a collateral source hearing that plaintiff will receive $205 per week in Workers’ Compensation benefits for the rest of her life. Even though the benefits were awarded after an unrelated 2002 accident, the damages awards for past and future lost income were reduced by $205 per week from the time of the 2010 accident (plaintiff was planning to return to work, and thereby lose the benefits, at the time of the 2010 accident):

​

In “[a]ctions for personal injury . . . where the plaintiff seeks to recover for the cost of medical care, dental care, custodial care or rehabilitation services, loss of earnings or other economic loss, evidence shall be admissible for consideration by the court to establish that any such past or future cost or expense was or will, with reasonable certainty, be replaced or indemnified, in whole or in part, from any collateral source, except for life insurance and those payments as to which there is a statutory right of reimbursement” (CPLR 4545[a]). The legislative intent of CPLR 4545(a) is to “eliminat[e] plaintiffs’ duplicative recoveries” … .. “The moving defendant bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to a collateral source reduction of an award for past or future economic loss” … .

“Reasonable certainty is understood as involving a quantum of proof that is greater than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Each of the four judicial departments has interpreted reasonable certainty’ as akin to the clear and convincing evidence standard, that the result urged by the defendant be highly probable'” … . In order to determine whether a party has established with “reasonable certainty” a payment by a collateral source, the defendants first “must establish with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff has received, or will receive, payments from a collateral source” … , and, second, “that collateral source payments which have been or will be received by the plaintiff must be shown to specifically correspond to particular items of economic loss awarded by the trier of fact” … . “Each case involving potential future collateral source reductions to awards for economic loss must be judged on its own unique facts and merits” … . McKnight v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 03740, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES, NEGLIGENCE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/COLLATERAL SOURCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)/DAMAGES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS)

EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department noted that evidence of general cleaning practices was not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the presence of liquid on the floor (the cause of plaintiff’s fall):

​

A defendant has constructive notice of a dangerous condition when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected… . Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the cafeteria supervisor, which only referred to general cleaning practices and did not establish when, prior to the subject accident, the area was last cleaned or inspected, failed to demonstrate that the alleged condition existed for an insufficient amount of time for it to have been remedied … . Valdes v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03794, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

​

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendants’ failed to demonstrate they did not have actual or constructive notice of or create the icy condition:

​

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that six or more inches of snow fell the day before the accident, and that the area of the gas station where she fell looked as if it had been plowed. The defendants provided only general information about their snow and ice removal practices, and no evidence was submitted, inter alia, as to when it last snowed prior to the time of the accident, what they actually did to remove snow and ice from the premises prior to the accident, when they last inspected the accident site prior to the accident, or what the accident site looked like within a reasonable time prior to the accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … .  D’Esposito v Manetto Hill Auto Serv., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03729, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)

PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER FALL, CODE VIOLATIONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE FALL, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted because plaintiff could not describe the cause of the fall. The expert affidavit citing code violations did not connect the violations to the fall:

​

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that she could not identify the cause of her fall … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit from an engineer who asserted that the stairs violated several provisions of the “New York State Building Construction Code,” the plaintiff presented no evidence connecting these alleged violations to her fall. Thus, even assuming that an applicable code provision was violated, it would be speculative to assume that any such violation was a proximate cause of the accident … . Amster v Kromer, 2017 NY Slip Op 03720, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER FALL, CODE VIOLATIONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE FALL, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER FALL, CODE VIOLATIONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE FALL, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the notice of claim was properly granted in this bicycle accident case. The notice of claim stated plaintiff was “lawfully traveling” on a service road when injured by a defect in the road. The amendment sought to indicate plaintiff was riding a bicycle at the time he was injured:

​

A court may, in its discretion, grant an application for leave to serve an amended notice of claim if the mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the original notice was made in good faith, and the municipality has not been prejudiced … . In making a determination as to whether the municipality has been prejudiced, the court may consider the evidence adduced at a hearing conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, as well as any other evidence that is properly before the court … .

Here, the record does not show any bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, and the County failed to show that it would be prejudiced by the amendment. In particular, the County does not allege that the condition of the roadway changed prior to the service of the summons and complaint, which alleged that the plaintiff was injured while bicycling. Moreover, the record shows that Nassau County Police Department EMS personnel responded to the scene of the accident, and EMS personnel prepared a written report indicating that the plaintiff fell from a bicycle. Fast v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 03734, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the negligent supervision action against the school district, stemming from an assault by a student against the infant plaintiff (another student), properly survived summary judgment. The Second Department noted that the school, as opposed to the school district, is not an entity which can be sued. The decision includes a concise but complete explanation of the relevant law. Here the district was aware the infant plaintiff had been harassed by the student before and the student punched the infant plaintiff while a teacher was present in a classroom. The punch was immediately preceded by a couple of minutes of harassment of the infant plaintiff by the assailant:

​

… [T]he School District has not shown, prima facie, that the incident “involved the type of unforeseeable, spontaneous acts of violence for which school districts cannot be held liable” … , or that the teacher had no time to prevent the infant plaintiff’s injuries and, therefore, the alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . Moreover, the School District did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff voluntarily entered into a fight with the classmate; rather, the infant plaintiff’s testimony demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether he acted in self-defense … . Because the School District did not meet its prima facie burden, we do not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers … . Guerriero v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 03736, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF)/ASSAULT (STUDENT ON STUDENT, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF)

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this personal injury case was properly granted. The jury found defendant negligent but went on to find the negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury:

​

… [T]he plaintiff … was injured when an ammunition reloading device, owned by the defendant, exploded as the plaintiff attempted to remove what was purportedly a “dead” cartridge from the device. The defendant had inadvertently jammed a live round in the device two months earlier and had attempted to remove the combustible components before bringing it to the plaintiff and seeking his assistance in removing the jammed cartridge. * * *

… [T]here existed no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could rationally have found that the defendant’s negligent conduct was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Piro v Demeglio, 2017 NY Slip Op 03785, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this lead paint poisoning case should not have been granted:

“In order [t]o establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition’ ” … . Where, as here, there is no evidence that the landlord had actual notice, plaintiffs may establish that the landlord had constructive notice of such condition by demonstrating that the landlord “(1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … .  Here, it is undisputed that decedent retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs, but the remaining … factors are in dispute.

By submitting the deposition testimony of plaintiffs’ mother, wherein she testified that she told [defendant] that she would be living at the residence with her young children, [defendants] raised a triable issue of fact on the fifth … factor. Similarly, [defendant’s] own deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact on the second … factor inasmuch as he testified that the subject residence was old, that lead was taken out of gasoline in 1970, and he “must have known” that laws regarding lead started to come out in the 1970s ,,, . Even assuming, arguendo, that [defendants] met their initial burden on the third and fourth … factors, we conclude that plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact by submitting ” evidence from which it may be inferred that [defendant] knew that paint was peeling on the premises’ . . . , and evidence from which a jury could infer that [defendant] knew or should have known of the dangers of lead paint to children’ ” … . Rodrigues v Lesser, 2017 NY Slip Op 03669, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant orthopedic surgeon’s (McGrath’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/wrongful death case should have been granted. Defendant’s detailed affidavit established he did not deviate from the applicable standard of care and plaintiff’s expert, an anesthesiologist, did not raise a question of fact:

McGrath met his burden by submitting a detailed affirmation establishing that his care and treatment of decedent in recommending and performing surgery was consistent with the accepted standard of care … . The burden then shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact by submitting a physician’s affidavit establishing both a departure from the accepted standard of care and proximate cause … . Plaintiff failed to meet that burden inasmuch as he submitted the affirmation of an anesthesiologist who failed to establish how he was familiar with the accepted standard of care for an orthopedic surgeon. Although a medical expert need not be a specialist in a field to offer an opinion concerning the accepted standards of care in that field, a physician offering an opinion outside his or her particular field must lay a foundation to support the reliability of that opinion … . Chillis v Brundin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03646, 4th Dept 5-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EXPERT OPINION  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release referred only to claims arising from injuries suffered by defendant, and not injuries suffered by another:

In March 2013, third-party defendant John Salewski, while operating a tractor trailer owned by his employer and third-party defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc., was involved in a collision with a tractor trailer operated by defendant. Plaintiff is Salewski’s wife and was a passenger in the vehicle operated by Salewski at the time of the accident. Defendant commenced a personal injury action against Salewski and Werner for damages allegedly sustained in that accident. That action was settled in June 2014, and, in connection therewith, defendant executed a general release in favor of Salewski and Werner. In April 2015, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant for damages that she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. Defendant answered and thereafter commenced a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Salewski and Werner. Instead of answering, Salewski and Werner moved to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground of release. Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that the plain language of the release barred the third-party action. * * *

Here, the release clearly defines the incident, the claim and the lawsuit. The fact that there are multiple references to the term “injuries” indicates an unambiguous intention to limit the release’s application only to the personal injuries suffered by defendant in the incident. We further find this language to be a clear and unambiguous expression of the parties’ intention that the release applies only to claims related to defendant’s injuries. As such, and giving full meaning and effect to its material provisions, the release plainly manifests an intent to release Salewski and Werner for any and all claims related to defendant’s personal injuries, and not to claims for contribution and indemnification for injuries allegedly suffered by another party — here, plaintiff … . Salewski v Music, 2017 NY Slip Op 03582, 3rd Dept 5-5-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/NEGLIGENCE (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/RELEASES (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)

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