You are here: / Negligence

INJURY FROM DIVING INTO THE SHALLOW END OF A POOL NOT ACTIONABLE.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s injury from diving into the shallow end of a pool was not actionable:

It is well established that “[s]ummary judgment is an appropriate remedy in swimming pool injury cases when from his general knowledge of pools, his observations prior to the accident, and plain common sense’ . . . , the plaintiff should have known that, if he dove into the pool, the area into which he dove contained shallow water and, thus, posed a danger of injury” … . In light of that standard, we conclude that defendant met her burden on the motion, and that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . The record establishes that plaintiff lived on the same street as defendant, swam in the subject pool multiple times prior to the accident, was aware that striking the bottom of a pool was a risk when diving into the shallow end of the pool, and acknowledged that he knew the depth dimensions of defendant’s pool, i.e., where the shallow end started and ended. Under those circumstances, we conclude that plaintiff’s reckless conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was negligent in failing to provide a “safety float line separating the shallow and deep end of [her] pool, [we conclude that] even the most liberal interpretation of the record eliminates any cause of this accident other than the reckless conduct of plaintiff” … . Brady v Domino, 2016 NY Slip Op 08687, 4th Dept 12-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (INJURY FROM DIVING INTO THE SHALLOW END OF A POOL NOT ACTIONABLE)/SWIMMING POOLS (INJURY FROM DIVING INTO THE SHALLOW END OF A POOL NOT ACTIONABLE)/DIVING (INJURY FROM DIVING INTO THE SHALLOW END OF A POOL NOT ACTIONABLE)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (INJURY FROM DIVING INTO THE SHALLOW END OF A POOL NOT ACTIONABLE)

, ,

PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined certain causes of action in this medical malpractice suit should have been allowed to go to the jury. Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted. Most of the opinion is fact-generated and cannot be summarized here. The law surrounding a directed verdict in this context, including the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, was explained. A plaintiff is not required to eliminate all other possible causes of injury to make out a prima facie case:

A directed verdict is only appropriate “when, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving part[y] and affording such part[y] the benefit of every inference, there is no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of the nonmovant[]” … . “[A] plaintiff asserting a medical malpractice claim must demonstrate that the doctor deviated from acceptable medical practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury” … . “[T]o establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury” … . A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may also rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur … , which “permits the jury to infer negligence and causation sufficient to establish a prima facie case based on circumstantial evidence” … . “Notably, a plaintiff is not required to eliminate all other possible causes of the injury in order to establish a prima facie case” of medical malpractice … . * * *

“Whether or not res ipsa loquitur was applicable here, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury” on two of her three theories of liability … . Upon the evidence submitted, Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiff’s first theory of liability as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff’s proof, yet provided no explanation for dismissing the entire complaint, and we can perceive none under the circumstances of this case given the existence of two viable and independent theories of liability that were supported by sufficient trial proof … . Majid v Cheon-Lee, 2016 NY Slip Op 08572, 3rd Dept 12-22-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DIRECTED VERDICT, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DIRECTED VERDICT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ELIMINATE ALL OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INJURY TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the appellate division, determined the proximate cause of the accident presented a jury question. Defendants own a farm from which a calf, born that day, escaped. Plaintiff’s decedent saw the calf in the roadway, stopped her car and got out to help the calf. She was then struck by a vehicle and killed. The appellate division held that the escaped calf created a condition for the accident, but was not a proximate cause of the accident. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case law addressing when an intervening act severs the causal connection and held that, under these facts, proximate cause presented a jury question:

The very same risk that rendered negligent the Farm’s alleged failure to restrain or retrieve its farm animal — namely, that the wandering calf would enter a roadway and cause a collision — was, in fact, the risk that came to fruition … . That the Farm could not predict the exact manner in which the calf would cause injury to a motorist does not preclude liability because the general risk and character of injuries was foreseeable … . … Thus, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the Farm’s negligence merely furnished the occasion for the collision or that the accident resulting in decedent’s death did not flow from the Farm’s negligent conduct in permitting its calf to stray.

A factfinder could reasonably conclude that decedent’s actions in exiting her vehicle and entering the roadway were an entirely “‘normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence'” … . In Hastings v Sauve, we held that a property owner may be liable under ordinary principles of tort law when he or she, through negligent acts or omissions, allows a farm animal — specifically, a domestic animal as defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7) — to stray from the property on which the animal is kept (see 21 NY3d at 125-126). …  Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that it is foreseeable that a motorist who encounters such an animal on a rural roadway would attempt to remove the animal from the thoroughfare. Such conduct cannot, as a matter of law, be considered so “extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct,” that it breaks the chain of causation … . Hain v Jamison, 2016 NY Slip Op 08583, CtApp 12-22-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/ANIMAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/INTERVENING CAUSE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/CONDITION VERSUS PROXIMATE CAUSE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)/FORESEEABILITY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK)

,

MOTHER CAN NOT RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSED BY IN UTERO INJURY WHEN THE BABY IS BORN ALIVE.

The Second Department determined mother could not recover for emotional distress based upon alleged in utero medical malpractice when the baby is born alive. Here the baby was born alive but not conscious and died eight days later:

When an infant who is injured by medical malpractice while in utero survives the pregnancy, the infant may seek damages for his or her injuries … . If the pregnant mother suffers an independent injury as a result of malpractice, she may commence suit to recover for her own personal injuries … . If the malpractice causes a stillbirth or miscarriage, the mother can recover for emotional injuries even without showing that she suffered an independent physical injury … . However, where, as here, the alleged medical malpractice causes in utero injury to a fetus that is born alive, the mother cannot recover damages for emotional harm … . Ward v Safajou, 2016 NY Slip Op 08394, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTHER CAN NOT RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSED BY IN UTERO INJURY WHEN THE BABY IS BORN ALIVE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTHER CAN NOT RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSED BY IN UTERO INJURY WHEN THE BABY IS BORN ALIVE)/IN UTERO INJURY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTHER CAN NOT RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSED BY IN UTERO INJURY WHEN THE BABY IS BORN ALIVE)/EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTHER CAN NOT RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSED BY IN UTERO INJURY WHEN THE BABY IS BORN ALIVE)

, ,

DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT].

The Second Department determined plaintiffs raised a question of fact when the terms of the lease created a duty on the part of the tenant (the City here) to maintain the abutting sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 imposes a nondelegable duty on a property owner to maintain and repair the sidewalk abutting its property, and specifically imposes liability upon certain property owners for injuries resulting from a violation of the code provision (see Administrative Code § 7-210…).

As a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party … . This is in accordance with the principle that “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized that there are exceptions to this general rule and that there are situations in which a party who enters into a contract may be said to have assumed a duty of care to third parties

The lease, inter alia, required the City, at its sole cost and expense, to take good care of the sidewalk, and “make all repairs thereto, ordinary and extraordinary, foreseen and unforeseen.” It also provided that the former owner “shall have no responsibility and shall not be required to furnish any services, make any repairs or to perform any other maintenance work.” The plaintiffs’ submission of this evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City’s lease was comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance so as to entirely displace the former landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk … . Hsu v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08348, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES, DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])/SLIP AND FALL (DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])/SIDEWALKS (DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT])

DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been granted to defendant Brady in this bicycle-car collision case. Brady was parked parallel to Dunbar waiting for Dunbar to pull out of a parking space. Plaintiff rode her bicycle between the two cars and struck the door of the Dunbar car when Dunbar opened it to speak to Brady. Brady’s car was deemed not to be a proximate cause of the accident, rather the position of Brady’s car merely furnished the condition for the accident. Dunbar’s motion for summary judgment, however was properly denied:

The Supreme Court should have granted Brady’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the second supplemental complaint insofar as asserted against him. Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the jury … , “liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event’ but was not one of its causes” … . Here, in support of his motion, Brady demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that his conduct in stopping his car while waiting for a parking space merely furnished the condition or occasion for the accident, and was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … .

… Dunbar failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Dunbar was negligent in opening the door when it was not reasonably safe to do so, and in allegedly failing to see what, by the reasonable use of his senses, he should have seen … . Price v Tasber, 2016 NY Slip Op 08385, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/PROXIMATE CAUSEEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/ BICYCLES (DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/CONDITION FOR ACCIDENT (DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)

WHEEL STOP OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.

The Second Department after the grant of defendant’s summary judgment motion in this slip and fall case. The wheel stop over which plaintiff tripped was deemed open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:

Although a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous … . Generally, “[a] wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographic evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff tripped when her foot came into contact with a wheel stop that was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. Among other things, the plaintiff testified at her deposition that she noticed the yellow cement wheel stops in the parking lot shortly before her accident … . Bogaty v Bluestone Realty NY, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08343, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (WHEEL STOP OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/SLIP AND FALL (WHEEL STOP OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/WHEEL STOPS (WHEEL STOP OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (WHEEL STOP OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS)

,

INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly set aside a verdict in a slip and fall case as inconsistent. The jury found plaintiff was negligent but her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries (she slipped and fell on a wet floor in defendant’s store). But the jury went on to attribute 15% of the fault for the accident to plaintiff:

… [W]hen a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must order either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial … . Under the circumstances here, the jury’s verdict as to liability was internally inconsistent because the jury attributed 15% of the fault for the accident to the plaintiff, despite having found that the plaintiff’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries … . The Supreme Court properly determined that the jury was confused about the meaning of the court’s charge regarding proximate cause when it returned its liability verdict … . Magee v Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08354,  2nd Dept 12-14-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASSIDE)/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE)

,

JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the driver who caused the injury to plaintiff’s leg was properly excluded from the verdict sheet in this medical malpractice action. Only the treatment of the leg injury (amputation) was before the jury, not the original injury:

[T]he court [did not] err in denying defendants’ request to place the driver of the vehicle that struck plaintiff, who settled prior to institution of the instant action, on the verdict sheet. Defendants are subsequent tortfeasors, and the jury was correctly charged that its award was to be limited to the exacerbation of the original injury caused by malpractice … . Defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s original injury and subsequent amputation were indivisible is without merit, in that the experts testified as to what the condition of the leg would have been if it had been saved … . Defendants’ arguments concerning General Obligations Law § 15-108 are academic, given that the court reduced the judgment based upon the settlement received by the settling driver. Marin v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08294, 1st Dept 12-8-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET)

,

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the causes of action against abutting property owners (the Herlichs) and the county alleging obstruction of sight at an intersection should not have been dismissed:

“A homeowner has no duty under the common law to prevent vegetation from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway, but a duty to such users may be created by statute or ordinance” … . “[W]here a specific regulatory provision . . . imposes upon property owners a duty to prevent vegetation from visually obstructing the roadway, proof of noncompliance with the regulatory provision may give rise to tort liability for any damages proximately caused thereby” … . Here, the Herlich defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they failed to demonstrate that the hedge on their property did not constitute a visual obstruction in violation of Code of the Town of Oyster Bay chapter 246 § 246-4.4.4, and Code of the Village of Massapequa Park chapter 298, article I, § … . …

“It has long been established that a governmental body, be it the State, a county or a municipality, is under a nondelegable duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition, and that liability will flow for injuries resulting from a breach of the duty” … . Here, the County, which concedes that the section of Park Boulevard where the accident occurred was within its jurisdiction, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that Park Boulevard was maintained in a reasonably safe condition with unobstructed sight lines. Dutka v Odierno, 2016 NY Slip Op 08196, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/INTERSECTIONS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

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