You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

HERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF EACH NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE INCIDENTS; WHERE A SCHOOL HAS TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING A CLAIM, THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A BAR TO GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against defendant school district should been granted. The petition alleged negligent supervision a student who was assaulted, harassed, and bullied on specific occasions. There were contemporaneous incident reports. The school district, therefore, had knowledge of the nature of the claims within 90 days of each incident:

… [T]he petitioner established that the School District had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of each incident included in the notice of claim. The petitioner submitted, among other things, incident reports and documentation of investigations conducted by the School District within days of the incidents … , police reports that documented communications and an investigation by school officials … , an electronic communication between the petitioner and a school official … , and an “[a]ction [p]lan” created pursuant to a meeting between the petitioner and school officials where the alleged wrongful conduct and the plans to monitor the students and address the conduct were discussed … .

As the petitioner demonstrated that the School District acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the petitioner met her initial burden of showing that the School District would not be prejudiced by the late notice of claim … . In opposition to the petitioner’s initial showing, the School District failed to come forward with particularized evidence showing that the late notice had substantially prejudiced its ability to defend the claim on the merits … .

Although the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve the notice of claim, “where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . Matter of Polito v North Babylon Sch. Dist., 2026 NY Slip Op 01067, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: In the context of a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against a school district, the absence of a reasonable excuse for timely filing the claim may be overlooked where it is demonstrated the school had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claims.

 

, ,

A POLICE CAR RESPONDING AN EMERGENCY CALL SWERVED INTO A TURN LANE TO PASS A CAR AND STRUCK A SKATEBOARDER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the “reckless disregard” standard for liability applied to this accident involving a police car and a skateboarder, and (2) the county defendants did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether the “reckless disregard” standard was met. The officer was responding a call from a woman in labor with complications. The officer struck the skateboarder, who was in a turn lane, when the officer swerved into the turn lane to pass a car:

The “reckless disregard” standard demands more than a showing of a lack of “due care under the circumstances” … . “It requires evidence that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . “This standard requires a showing of more than a momentary lapse in judgment” … .

Here, the defendants established that the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 was applicable to Degere’s [the officer’s] conduct because he was responding to a radio call of a woman going into labor with complications … . However, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint because their moving papers failed to eliminate all issues of material fact regarding whether Degere acted recklessly by either traveling at a high speed in the center turn lane in a school zone with poor lighting conditions or abruptly merging into the center turn lane without first looking to his left or activating his turn signal … . Moccasin v Suffolk County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01049, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “reckless disregard for the safety of others” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 in the context of a police officer responding to an emergency call.

 

THE HOTEL, IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM FAMILY MEMBERS, ASSUMED A DUTY TO CHECK ON A GUEST WHO HAD THREATENED SUICIDE; THE HOTEL FULFILLED THAT DUTY; THE HOTEL, HOWEVER, DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY TO IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE; THE HOTEL WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE GUEST’S SUICIDE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the defendant hotel, after a request from a guest’s family, had assumed a duty to check on the guest who had threatened suicide in text messages to family members. The hotel fulfilled the assumed duty to check on the guest. However the hotel did not assume a duty to immediately call for emergency assistance after a subsequent request from the family. The hotel, sometime after the family’s request, did procure emergency assistance. The guest was on the window ledge when police officers entered his room. He jumped from the ledge:

Plaintiffs concede that defendants did not have an underlying legal duty to prevent decedent, a hotel guest, from taking his own life. It is undisputed that defendants, as the owner and operator of the premises, are not insurers of a visitor’s safety. Rather, plaintiffs’ theory of liability is one of assumed duty. “[E]ven when no original duty is owed to the plaintiff to undertake affirmative action, once it is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care” … . …

… [T]o be held liable under an assumed duty theory, it is not enough that defendants undertook to perform a service and did so negligently, but their “conduct in undertaking the service [must have] somehow placed [decedent] in a more vulnerable position than he would have been in had [defendants] never taken any action at all” … . * * *

Recognizing an assumed duty in these circumstances would create a specter of liability that discourages rather than encourages hotels from offering assistance to guests contemplating suicide. Because hotels owe no inherent duty to provide such aid, the most rational and likely way for them to avoid liability would be to implement formal policies against their employees involving themselves in efforts to render potentially life-saving aid to guests. In keeping with the State’s “interest[] in preserving life and preventing suicide” … , the better rule is one that incentivizes both hotels and concerned parties to do all they reasonably can in these difficult and emotionally charged situations. Beadell v Eros Mgt. Realty LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00962, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an explanation of the circumstances under which a party which does not ordinarily owe a duty of care to another party can “assume” a duty of care in response to a request.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED A ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC ADRENALECTOMY; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON WHO WAS EXPERIENCED IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, BUT NOT ROBOTIC SURGERY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING; THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC SURGERY WENT TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint, determined the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon, should not have been precluded on the ground he was not qualified to testify about robotic surgery. The complaint alleged the defendant negligently performed a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy:

“A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, but the witness should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, a board certified general surgeon, testified that he had knowledge of adrenalectomies and the splenic vein based on his education and training, had performed surgeries involving the adrenal gland, and had extensive experience performing laparoscopic surgeries, and he opined that the principles of good surgical practice with respect to the isolation, preservation, and protection of adjacent organs were the same regardless of whether a surgery was performed openly, laparoscopically, or robotically. This testimony was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s expert was qualified to render an opinion regarding the standard of care for a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy … . The expert’s lack of experience in performing robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomies goes to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility … . Lynch v Wang, 2026 NY Slip Op 00887, Second Dept 2-28-26

Practice Point: A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field to testify about accepted practices in that field. Here the plaintiff alleged defendant negligently performed robotic surgery. Plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon who was not experienced in robotic surgery, should not have been precluded from testifying.

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BY AN INSURER SEEKING SUBROGATION FOR A CLAIM ALREADY PAID IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE; THE PAID CLAIM STEMMED FROM THE ACCIDENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ONGOING LITIGATION; THE MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer, Utica, which paid out $775,000 to plaintiff under an uninsured motorist policy purchased by plaintiff’s employer, was entitled intervene seeking subrogation in a lawsuit stemming from the same accident. Although the motion to intervene was untimely, it should have been granted under the relation-back doctrine. Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle while working at a construction site:

… Utica’s subrogation cause of action is not time-barred, as it merely seeks reimbursement for coverage tendered for the plaintiff’s personal injuries. This cause of action arises out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the plaintiff’s causes of action and includes the same questions of liability related to the accident. It is, therefore, similar enough to the plaintiff’s causes of action that the defendants were thereby placed on notice of the insurer’s claim … . * * *

“‘Subrogation is the principle by which an insurer, having paid losses of its insured, is placed in the position of its insured so that it may recover from the third party legally responsible for the loss'” … . “Subrogation is an equitable doctrine that allows an insurer to ‘stand in the shoes of its insured to seek indemnification from third parties whose wrongdoing has caused a loss for which the insurer is bound to reimburse'” … . “Thus, the insurer can only recover if the insured could have recovered and its claim as subrogee is subject to whatever defenses the third party might have asserted against its insured” … .

Here, Utica’s cause of action for subrogation has common questions of law and fact with the plaintiff’s causes of action, as Utica concedes that the proposed complaint “mirrors, in all respects, the complaint in the within suit.” By intervention, Utica stands in the shoes of the plaintiff. Utica would be bound by the judgment in this case and, without intervention, its interests are not represented. Further, there would be no prejudice to the defendants, as intervention would not cause delay, a need for additional discovery, or motion practice. Steward v Brooklyn Pier 1 Residential Owner, LP, 2026 NY Slip Op 00933, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Here the relation-back doctrine was applied to render a motion to intervene timely.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for a subrogation action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD HIRED ATRIUM, PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER, TO HANDLE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PAYROLL AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM ATRIUM FOR A WORK-RELATED INJURY; GTLF, AS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER, CANNOT BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined GTLF was plaintiff’s special employer and Atrium was plaintiff’s general employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined plaintiff was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits from Atrium, his general employer, for a work-related injury. Therefore, plaintiff could not sue GTLF, his special employer, in negligence based upon that work-related injury. GTLF was entitled to summary judgment:

For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer—a general employer and a special employer … . “The receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … .

“In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, ‘who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work’ is a ‘significant and weighty feature,’ but is not determinative of the issue” … . Indeed, “[m]any factors are to be considered when deciding whether such a special employment relationship exists and not one factor is decisive” … . Other principal factors to be considered include “who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business” … . General employment will be presumed to continue unless there is a “clear demonstration of surrender of control by the general employer and assumption of control by the special employer” … .

Here, in addition to a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and a copy of the agreement between GTLF and Atrium, GTLF submitted an affidavit of its CEO, who averred, among other things, that after GTLF retained Atrium for “certain aspects of [the] plaintiff’s employment, including payroll and Workers’ Compensation insurance . . . [GTLF] maintained the same supervision and control of the plaintiff regarding his duties as a” brand ambassador. Based upon this evidence, GTLF established, prima facie, that GTLF was the plaintiff’s special employer … . Samuel v Petainer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00925, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how to determine whether an employer is a general employer or a special employer for purposes of Worders’ Compensation benefits. If a worker receives Workers’ Compensation benefits from the worker’s general employer for a work-related injury, the employee cannot sue the special employer in negligence for that same injury.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SHED WHICH WAS BEING TRANSPORTED AS AN OVERSIZED LOAD; AN EMPLOYER WHICH HIRES AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WILL GENERALLY NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR IS TASKED WITH AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” TRANSPORTING AN OVERSIZED LOAD BY TRUCK IS NOT AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE TRUCK DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, over a dissent, determined defendant ACS, which hired defendant St. Mary as an independent contractor, was not vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver working for St. Mary. Plaintiff was struck by a shed which was being transported by truck as an oversized load. Although the employer is usually not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, there is an exception where the employer assigns an “inherently dangerous” task to the independent contractor. The majority concluded that moving a shed on a truck as an oversized load did not meet the definition of “inherently dangerous:”

​It is undisputed that St Mary was an independent contractor of ACS and, as a general rule, “a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . Certain exceptions exist to this general rule, however. These exceptions include, as is relevant here, ” ‘where the employer . . . has assigned work to an independent contractor which the employer knows or has reason to know involves special dangers inherent in the work or dangers which should have been anticipated by the employer’ ” … . * * *

… “[A]n actor who hires an independent contractor to do work that the actor knows or should know involves an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to vicarious liability for physical harm when the abnormally dangerous activity is a factual cause of any such harm within the scope of liability” (Restatement [Third] of Torts § 58). “[A]n activity is abnormally dangerous if: (1) the activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and (2) the activity is not one of common usage” … .

​… [N]o view of the facts presented on this motion supports the conclusion that the trucking of the oversized load in question was an inherently dangerous activity because there was not a significant risk of harm if reasonable care were exercised by those involved — namely, Rousell [the driver]. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries resulted from Rousell failing to take notice of his surroundings on one side of the vehicle and crossing the line separating lanes of travel. This ordinary incident of negligence — i.e., failing to appropriately observe one’s surroundings — is not inherent in the trucking of oversized loads and could have been avoided with the exercise of reasonable care. “Demanding though it may be, the activity of transporting [oversized loads on public highways] — successfully accomplished countless times daily — does not involve that sort of inherent risk for the nonnegligent driver and is simply not an inherently dangerous activity so as to trigger vicarious liability” … . Deitrich v Binghamton Rd. Elec., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00557, Third Dept 2-5-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes an “inherently dangerous activity” which can trigger an employer’s vicarious liability for the negligence of an independent contractor.​

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS WAIVED A DEFENSE WITHOUT THEIR CLIENTS’ CONSENT; THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint should not have been granted. Defendants-attorneys represented Park West. A driver working for Park West was in an accident and both Park West and the driver were sued. The contract between the driver and Park West indicated the driver was an independent contractor. The attorneys, however, conceded the driver was an employee and Park West settled. The essence of the legal malpractice action was the attorneys’ failure to raise the independent-contractor-defense to Park West’s liability. The First Department noted that the evidence indicated the driver may in fact have been Park West’s employee, but that cannot be decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The only relevant question for the motion to dismiss is whether the complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice:

The motion court improperly held that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice against defendants. To state a claim for legal malpractice, a “plaintiff must show that (1) the attorney was negligent; (2) the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s losses; and (3) plaintiff suffered actual damages” … . Moreover, an “attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if but for the attorney’s negligence the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages” … .

Here, plaintiffs argue that but for defendants’ negligence in waiving Park West’s independent contractor defense in the underlying action, without their consent and without disclosing conflicts in their representation of several defendants in the action, they would not have been compelled to settle the action, and they would not have been held vicariously liable for [the driver’s] negligence. Park W. Exec. Servs., Inc. v Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP, 2026 NY Slip Op 00428, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The question at the motion-to-dismiss stage is whether the complaint states a cause of action, not whether the elements of the cause of action can be proven. Here the defendants-attorneys’ waiver of a defense without their client’s consent stated a cause of action for legal malpractice. Whether that defense would hold up at trial is not relevant to a dismissal for failure state a cause of action.​

 

,

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEY FAILED TO PROVE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO REMEDY THE WET FLOOR, AND THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The slip and fall was related to tracked-in water in the lobby of defendants’ premises. The court noted what defendants failed to prove, i.e., there was a “storm in progress,” they took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet floor, and they didn’t have constructive or actual notice of the condition. The decision provides insight into how those issues can be proven:

Defendants failed to demonstrate that they are protected from liability for plaintiff’s accident by the storm in progress rule. They did not submit any weather reports or expert opinions to show an ongoing storm at the time of plaintiff’s fall, and plaintiff’s conclusory, affirmative response when asked whether it was “snowing when [her] accident happened” is insufficient to show that a storm was in progress … .

… [T]he superintendent … could not recall whether he placed … signs or dry-mopped on the morning of plaintiff’s accident or if he even worked that day. In fact, there was no evidence that a caution sign was placed in the lobby or that anyone had mopped the area prior to the accident, or throughout that day … . Although defendants were not obligated to continuously mop moisture tracked onto the lobby floor by people entering from outside or to cover the entire floor with mats, here plaintiff claims that her accident was caused by a lack of matting on the portion of the lobby between the entrance and the stairway … . …

Defendants … failed to demonstrate when they last inspected the lobby on the day of the accident … . … [T]hey failed to produce a witness to testify that no complaints about the location of plaintiff’s fall were received before the accident and that there were no prior incidents in that area before plaintiff fell … . * * * … [T]he superintendent, who could not recall if he worked on the day of plaintiff’s accident, testified that he could not recall if anyone had complained to him about water on the floor of the lobby and that he had “no idea” about the procedure for tenants to make complaints. Rodney v 840 Westchester Ave, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00435, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what evidence a defendant in a wet-floor slip and fall case should present to prove (1) the “storm in progress” defense, (2) actions were taken to remedy the wet floor, (3) defendant’s lack of constructive notice of the condition, and (4) defendant’s lack of actual notice of the condition.

Practice Point: Note that the plaintiff’s testimony that it was snowing at the time of her fall was not sufficient to prove defendants’ “storm in progress” defense.

 

, ,

IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the out-of-possession landlord and the lessee of the hotel where plaintiff slipped and fell on water on the bathroom floor were entitled to summary judgment. The out-of-possession landlord was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair a dangerous condition. The lessee demonstrated it had no constructive or actual notice of the condition:

“‘An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . “[A] landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … . * * *

Here, the moving defendants established, prima facie, that New Ram [the lessee] did not create or have constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition …. [T]he moving defendants submitted … plaintiff’s deposition transcript indicating that the plaintiff did not see any water on the bathroom floor prior to his fall. The plaintiff testified that he showered in the bathroom at approximately 6:00 p.m., after which there was no water on the bathroom floor. Thereafter, he went to sleep and awoke at approximately 1:00 a.m. to use the bathroom, where he fell and then first noticed the leak. The plaintiff also testified that he never noticed or reported any leaks or water on the bathroom floor prior to this incident and that he never before complained about water on the bathroom floor or leaks … .

The moving defendants also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of [the lessee’s] former general manager, who testified that there had never before been reports of a water leak from one room to another, nor had there been reports of any other slip and falls in the bathrooms of the hotel. She further stated that any such report would have been recorded in a log, and no such report existed. Additionally, another hotel worker averred in an affidavit that he was not aware of any incidents in the hotel where water leaked from one room to another. Gibbs v New Ram Realty, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00349, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlord was not obligated to repair dangerous conditions by contract or course of conduct and the lessee of the property demonstrated a lack of constructive and actual notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The property defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

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