You are here: / Negligence

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined the defendants in a slip and fall case were not entitled to summary judgment because they did not affirmatively demonstrate a lack of notice of the icy condition:

 

Defendants did not demonstrate that they lacked constructive notice of the icy condition since they did not proffer an affidavit or testimony based on personal knowledge as to when its employees last inspected the driveway or as to the driveway’s condition prior to the accident … . The testimony of defendants’ branch manager as to his usual and customary practice of inspecting the premises each morning does not satisfy defendants’ burden of showing that they lacked notice of the alleged condition of the driveway prior to the accident, as there was no evidence to show that the manager’s customary practice was followed on the day of the accident … . Singh v Citibank, N.A., 2016 NY Slip Op 01120, 1st Dept 2-16-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A SNOWMAKING MACHINE.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether he assumed the risk of a skiing injury. Plaintiff fell and slid headfirst into an unpadded portion of a pole on a snowmaking machine. The court rejected defendant’ argument that the General Obligations Law, not the common law controlled:

 

Although there was padding on the upper portion of the pole, plaintiff collided with the lower, unpadded portion of the pole. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff assumed the risks associated with the sport of skiing. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court properly denied the motion. We note at the outset that General Obligations Law § 18-107 provides that, “[u]nless otherwise specifically provided in this article, the duties of skiers, passengers, and ski operators shall be governed by common law” and, contrary to defendant’s contention, the precise circumstances of plaintiff’s accident are not covered by article 18 of the General Obligations Law. Thus, the common law applies where, as here, plaintiff is alleging the negligent placement and inadequate padding of defendant’s snowmaking machines, a condition not “specifically addressed by the statute” … .

It is well settled under the common law that “[v]oluntary participants in the sport of downhill skiing assume the inherent risks of personal injury caused by, among other things, terrain, weather conditions, ice, trees and man-made objects that are incidental to the provision or maintenance of a ski facility” … . Here, although defendant met its initial burden by establishing that the accident was caused by the inherent risks in the sport of downhill skiing, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of his expert … . Plaintiff’s expert asserted therein that the snowmaking machine was on the ski trail and was insufficiently padded, thus raising an issue of fact whether defendant “failed to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition” … . Dailey v Labrador Dev. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01072, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP SUPPORTED AN INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MALPRACTICE, INSURANCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP SUPPORTING AN INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION EXISTED)

,

FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, found that a property owner, West River, which had a statutory duty to maintain an abutting sidewalk, was not entitled to summary judgment based solely on the fact that the defect in the sidewalk over which plaintiff tripped was not in front West River’s property. The expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was in front of a neighboring property (the Mercado property). However, a nearby portion of the sidewalk which had subsided was in front of West River’s property. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, West River was required to demonstrate it did not breach its duty to maintain the sidewalk, or that any such breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall.  Simply demonstrating the expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of West River’s property was not enough:

 

Plaintiff tripped on an expansion joint that abutted the Mercados’ property. That does not end the inquiry, nor does the fact that the defect upon which plaintiff tripped was in front of the Mercado property necessarily absolve West River of liability. Although West River did not have a duty to remedy any defects in front of the Mercado property, section 7-210 (a) [of the Administrative Code of the City of New York] imposed a duty on West River to maintain the sidewalk abutting its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Moreover, the plain language of section 7-210 (b) provides that West River may be held liable for injuries where its failure to maintain its sidewalk is a proximate cause of that injury. Here, most of the sunken sidewalk flag that plaintiff traversed abutted West River’s property, and plaintiff claims that West River’s sidewalk flag had sunk lower than the expansion joint upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped. Thus, West River failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, leaving factual questions as to whether West River breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk flag abutting its property and, if so, whether that breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment should have been denied. Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01002, CtApp 2-11-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SIDEWALKS (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined decedent’s representative had raised a question of fact whether the driver of a city dump truck was negligent. Decedent was a passenger in a car which struck the back of the dump struck which was either stopped or coming to a stop in the left lane of the highway. Although the driver of the truck testified a tire had just blown, causing the truck to veer to the left, the truck was still moving when struck, and the emergency flashing lights were on, the sole eyewitness testified the truck was parked and its lights were not on:

 

The City made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that its truck was lawfully stopped on the highway due to an emergency (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202[a][1][j]) when it was struck in the rear by the Cadena vehicle. However, in opposition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, affording him the benefit of every favorable inference …, and applying the Noseworthy doctrine (see Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80) to hold him to a lesser standard of proof, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the truck driver exercised reasonable care in warning other drivers of the hazard posed by his disabled vehicle. Generally, when one causes a public road to become obstructed, there is a duty to “exercise[ ] the care that a reasonably prudent person should have under all the circumstances” … . The exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances may include warning other motorists of the hazards posed by the obstruction … . Typically, whether reasonable care was exercised is a question of fact … .

The City’s truck driver testified at a deposition that the truck’s headlights were on, that after the blowout of the tire he activated the truck’s emergency lights, and that the accident occurred within seconds of veering into the left lane while he was still moving 10 to 15 miles per hour. However, the sole eyewitness to the accident, Weiguo Qu, indicated that he saw the truck “parked” in the left lane of a highway with its lights off and no flashing lights. In light of this conflicting evidence, triable issues of fact exist regarding, among other things, whether the City’s truck driver failed to exercise reasonable care to warn other motorists of the obstruction and, if so, whether such failure was a proximate cause of the accident… . Pinilla v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00953, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

EMINENT DOMAIN (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/LANDLORD-TENANT (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/TRADE FIXTURES (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)

, ,

FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE SCARRING WAS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE SIGNING OF THE CONSENT FORM, AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT SCARRING, REQUIRED DENIAL OF PHYSICIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendant physician (Barazani) was not entitled to summary judgment on the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, despite the plaintiff’s signing of a consent form. Although the consent form mentioned scarring as a possibility, there was no showing the defendant discussed scarring with the plaintiff before the consent form was signed. In addition, there was no showing plaintiff would have gone through with the surgery had scarring been adequately discussed. [Another example of the need for a defendant seeking summary judgment to affirmatively address every possible theory of recovery.]:

 

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was the proximate cause of the injury (see Public Health Law § 2805-d[1]…).

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent. The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The consent form provided by the defendants and signed by the plaintiff warned generally that there was a risk of scarring after the biopsy was conducted. However, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and Barazani, which was submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, revealed a factual dispute as to whether Barazani properly advised the plaintiff of the risk of scarring before she signed the form … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that if the plaintiff had received full disclosure, she still would have consented to the procedure … . Schussheim v Barazani, 2016 NY Slip Op 00958, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the driver of a car involved in an accident was acting within the scope of his employment at the time. Therefore Supreme Court erred when it dismissed the complaint against the employer, alleging liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Here the employee was driving to the employer’s house, which had been used as the employer’s office, when the accident occurred:

 

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of his or her employment … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business” … . “Conversely, where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .

“An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his employer, or if his act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “[T]he employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “[B]ecause the determination of whether a particular act was within the scope of the servant’s employment is so heavily dependent on factual considerations, the question is ordinarily one for the jury” … . Brandford v Singh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00920, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)
, ,

SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY ENTERTAINED; ABSENCE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST POLICE.

In finding the defendant-city’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted, the Second Department noted that, although successive summary judgment motions are disfavored, the defendant-city’s second motion was properly entertained. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the police stemming from an attack on her by her husband and the shooting of her husband by the police. Prior to the attack and the shooting, plaintiff had gone to the police station seeking protection but was sent home. The negligence action against the city/police was dismissed on governmental immunity grounds because no “special relationship” between plaintiff and the police had been demonstrated:

 

That branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment should have been granted. Although successive motions for summary judgment are disfavored, a subsequent summary judgment motion may be properly entertained when it is substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts … .

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 … . A special duty is “a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,” and “is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . The elements required to establish a special relationship 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 the police did not assume an affirmative duty to act on Dawes’ behalf … . Graham v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00932, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/POLICE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

, ,

AFFIDAVITS IDENTIFYING THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS; IN THE CONTEXT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT’S FUNCTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY.

In this slip and fall case, the Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected affidavits submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to a summary judgment motion because of inconsistencies. The affidavits were from witnesses who saw plaintiff fall and who were able to identify the cause of plaintiff’s fall. In the context of a summary judgment motion, assessing credibility is not the court’s function:

 

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which demonstrated that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing on this ground, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s submissions included affidavits from two individuals who witnessed the accident and identified the cause of her fall … . The Supreme Court erred in rejecting these two eyewitness affidavits on the ground that they gave inconsistent accounts of the accident. “It is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” …, and any inconsistencies in the affidavits of the two eyewitnesses did not render them both incredible as a matter of law, but rather, raised issues of credibility to be resolved by the factfinder … . McRae v Venuto, 2016 NY Slip Op 00944, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/EVIDENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED, AND FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The defendants had directed plaintiff to a parking lot as a smoking area (where plaintiff fell). Therefore, defendants were obliged to make sure the parking lot was adequately illuminated. The defendants’ failure to affirmatively demonstrate the area was adequately illuminated, and their failure to demonstrate they did not create the dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it required denial of their summary judgment motion. [Yet another example of the necessity of affirmatively addressing every possible theory of recovery available to a plaintiff in a defense summary judgment motion.]:

 

… [H]aving directed guests to use the rear parking lot as a smoking area, they had a duty to provide adequate illumination … . The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the parking lot was adequately illuminated … . Contrary to the defendants’ further contention, the plaintiff was able to identify what had caused her to fall … . Additionally, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition of the parking lot or have actual or constructive notice thereof … . Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Steed v MVA Enters., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00960, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS EVERY THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant in this slip and fall case. The plaintiffs had sufficiently identified the cause of the fall (uneven floor). Defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the uneven floor was not a dangerous condition, and further failed to affirmatively demonstrate she had no notice of the condition and she did not create the condition. [Once again, a defendant must affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in a motion for summary judgment.]:

 

To impose liability upon a defendant for a plaintiff’s injuries, there must be evidence showing the existence of a dangerous or defective condition, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the circumstances of each case, and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject staircase was not in a defective condition and that she did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of such condition … . Since the defendant failed to meet her burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers. Davis v Sutton, 2016 NY Slip Op 00923, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)/SLIP AND FALL (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)

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