You are here: / Negligence
, ,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. The plaintiff served a notice of claim 30 days after the 90-day time limit expired, but defendant NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation conducted a 50-h hearing. After serving the summons and complaint, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a late notice of claim:

General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) permits a court to extend the time to serve a notice of claim. In determining whether to grant such an extension, the court must consider various factors, of which the ” most important'” is “whether the public corporation acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the accrual of the claim or within a reasonable time thereafter” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, in which the defendant received a late notice of claim less than one month after the expiration of the 90-day period, which it accepted and with respect to which it conducted an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the defendant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period … . Brunson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07618, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)

, ,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS.

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this intersection car accident case. Plaintiff alleged the county was negligent in failing to install a traffic control device with a left turn signal, because there was a designated lane for a left turn. The accident occurred when plaintiff attempted to make a left turn. Because the county did not demonstrate the issue had been adequately studied, it did not demonstrate government immunity applied. Therefore the county’s motion was properly denied without need to address the opposing papers:

A governmental entity has a duty to the public to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . “While this duty is nondelegable, it is measured by the courts with consideration given to the proper limits on intrusion into the [government’s] planning and decision-making functions. Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental entity may not be held liable for a highway safety planning decision unless its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate, or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan … . Immunity will apply only “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … .

Here, the County failed to establish that the design of the subject traffic signal, including the determination that no left-turn signal was warranted, was based on a study which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that the plaintiff would put to a jury … . Warren v Evans, 2016 NY Slip Op 07641, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)/IMMUNITY (HIGHWAYS, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)/HIGHWAYS (COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS)

,

DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK.

Defendant, Frasier, was driving to work in his own car when he was involved in a rear-end collision with plaintiff. Plaintiff sued defendant’s employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred:

As a general rule, an employee driving to and from work is not acting in the scope of his [or her] employment . . . Although such activity is work motivated, the element of control is lacking” … . “Although the issue whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment generally is one of fact, it may be decided as a matter of law in a case such as this, in which the relevant facts are undisputed” … .

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the mere fact that Frasier carried his own tools in his vehicle was insufficient to “transform the use of the automobile into a special errand [for defendant] or an extension of the employment” … . Moreover, the fact that Frasier drove a coworker to work that morning is of no significance because he was not directed to do so, and the carpool was based on the employees’ “personal arrangement” … . Finally, the fact that defendant paid for lodging for Frasier while he was at a remote work site also does not require a different finding inasmuch as defendant did not require its employees to stay at the procured hotel, and the employees did not have “to inform defendant of their whereabouts [outside of working hours]” … . Figura v Frasier, 2016 NY Slip Op 07525, 4th Dept 11-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK)

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised an issue of fact whether defendant contractor owed a duty to plaintiff because its flooring work created an unreasonable risk of harm to others. However Supreme Court erred in not finding the defect trivial as a matter of law:

Here, the record establishes that the bullnose tile was slightly less than one-half of an inch in height and was not the same color as the tile floor. * * * …”[T]he test established by the case law in New York is not whether a defect is capable of catching a pedestrian’s shoe. … [T]he relevant questions are whether the defect was difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” … . Upon our review of the photos of the alleged defect and in view of the less than ½-inch height of the bullnose tile and the circumstances surrounding decedent’s accident … , we conclude that, although an accident occurred that is “traceable to the defect, there is no liability” because the alleged defect ” is so slight that no careful or prudent [person] would reasonably anticipate any danger from its existence’ ” under the circumstances present here … . Stein v Sarkisian Bros., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07501, 4th Dept 11-10-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW)

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Defendants established they had no duty to remove snow at the time of plaintiff’s fall under the storm in progress doctrine. The court noted that the duty to render a parking lot safe does not entail the removal of all the snow:

It is undisputed that defendants met their initial burden on the motion “by establishing that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and, thus, that they had no duty to remove the snow and ice until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm” … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ” whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where [she] fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant[s] had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition’ ” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was entitled to rely upon the theory that the icy condition formed prior to the storm upon the melting and refreezing of snow piles created by defendants’ plowing practices … , we conclude that plaintiff’s assertion is based on mere speculation and thus is insufficient to raise an issue of fact … . Indeed, in surmising that there must have been snow piles throughout the parking lot from prior accumulations, plaintiff relied upon inadmissible printouts from a weather data website … , as well as defendants’ general practices regarding snow removal as set forth in their contract … . The record is devoid of competent evidence that any such snow piles existed or, more specifically, that a pile of snow was located near the area of the parking lot where plaintiff fell that had melted and had then refrozen prior to the storm, resulting in the icy condition that caused plaintiff’s accident … . Finally, to the extent that plaintiff contends that defendants’ snow removal efforts created the hazardous condition because they did not properly care for the area where she fell even though they had treated other areas of the parking lot during the storm, we note that it is well settled that ” [t]he mere failure to remove all snow and ice from a . . . parking lot does not constitute negligence’ and does not constitute creation of a hazard” … . Hanifan v Cor Dev. Co., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07498, 4th Dept 11-10-16

NEGLIGENCE (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD)/STORM IN PROGRESS (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD)/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD)

,

SCHOOL MAY HAVE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STUDENT’S CLAIM, BUT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE; LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined claimant high school wrestler should not have been granted leave to serve a late notice of claim against one of the two named schools, Akron. The claimant alleged he contracted herpes from an Akron wrestler during a tournament at Akron. Although Akron was deemed to have constructive knowledge of the claim, the court found it did not have timely actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim:

We agree with Akron … that it did not have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. Akron established that it was not aware until it received claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim that he was allegedly infected with herpes by wrestling Akron’s student at the tournament. …[C]laimant here established that, at most, Akron had constructive knowledge of the claim, which is insufficient … . It is well settled that actual knowledge of the claim is the factor that is accorded “great weight” in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Even if we agree with claimant that Akron suffered no prejudice from the delay, we nevertheless conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim against Akron … . Matter of Ficek v Akron Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 07545, 4th Dept 11-10-16

EDUCATION SCHOOL LAW (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, SCHOOL MAY HAVE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STUDENT’S CLAIM, BUT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, SCHOOL MAY HAVE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STUDENT’S CLAIM, BUT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (SCHOOL, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, SCHOOL MAY HAVE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STUDENT’S CLAIM, BUT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.

The First Department, in remanding for a new trial, determined (1) the expert disclosure notice provided by the defense was sufficient, and (2) plaintiff should have been allowed, during the trial, to submit an expert disclosure notice for a rebuttal witness.  Plaintiff alleged his foot was run over by a bus:

After the defense rested, plaintiff’s attorney sought permission to call two rebuttal witnesses. He submitted a CPLR 3101(d)(1) notice for an expert in biomechanical medicine, arguing that the disclosure notice for Dr. Kurtz had provided no indication that the doctor’s opinion was based on the lack of tread marks or injury to the metatarsals and ankle. He argued that the notice’s insufficiency had not allowed him to prepare an expert witness to address these issues directly. His proposed expert would demonstrate, by use of an anatomical model of a foot, that plaintiff’s foot could have been positioned after he fell in such a manner that when the bus wheel rolled over his foot, his ankle and upper foot would not have been injured as Dr. Kurtz claimed. The court denied his request based on the timing of the notice and its reasoning that no rebuttal was needed. …

We find that Dr. Kurtz’s CPLR 3101(d)(1) disclosure notice was legally sufficient; it provided plaintiff with notice that the doctor would question whether a bus would have caused the injuries sustained by plaintiff. It is improper for a party to request the facts and opinions upon which another party’s expert is expected to testify … . * * *

… [N]otwithstanding the delay by plaintiff in providing a CPLR 3101(d)(1) disclosure for his medical expert, the trial court, in the interest of justice, should have permitted the medical expert to testify in rebuttal. The court had allowed Dr. Kurtz to opine that there were inconsistencies between the claim of how the accident occurred and the resulting injuries, and although the testimony was not in his expertise, it was heard by the jury and opened the door to the necessity for plaintiff to produce a medical expert to attempt to rebut those opinions. Tate-Mitros v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07394, 1st Dept 11-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/EXPERT OPINION (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)/REBUTTAL EXPERT OPINION (EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT OPINION NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED)

ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the rope (connected to a tree and a metal stanchion in a building atrium) which caused plaintiff to trip and fall was a non-actionable open and obvious condition:

[Defendant] moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing that the subject metal stanchions and connecting rope were open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous. The Supreme Court denied [defendant’s] motion.

[Defendant] met its prima facie burden by showing that the subject rope and stanchions, which were known to the plaintiff, were open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact… . LeComples v More Specialized Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07298, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. The plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall as he attempted to board a bus:

“[A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” … . Although “[p]roximate cause may be established without direct evidence of causation, by inference from the circumstances of the accident[,] . . . mere speculation as to the cause of an accident, when there could have been many possible causes, is fatal to a cause of action” … . “Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused a trip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation” … . Hahn v Go Go Bus Tours, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07294, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

, , ,

COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the county could not be held liable for flooding by a brook which overflowed its banks. There was not special relationship between the county and the plaintiff:

“[A] municipal corporation is not liable for failure to restrain waters between banks of a stream or to keep a channel free from obstructions it did not cause. Absent any special duty owed to the private landowners, a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for failing to provide adequate flood protection” … . Here, the County demonstrated that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and that the overflow was caused by natural phenomena, rather than its conduct. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Kimball Brooklands Corp. v County of Westchester, 2016 NY Slip Op 07297, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/FLOODING (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF

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