Negligence Update May 2020

Negligence Update May 2020

Course #TRT0868 (Nontransitional) Prerecorded Audio (On Demand/Recorded-Audio)

Hybrid Accreditation for September 2, 2020, through December 31, 2021

This Course Is Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 0.5 CLE Credit Hour

Note: Before Relying On Any Decision Summarized on this Site, Including the Summaries in the CLE Written Materials, Make Sure It Remains Good Law Using the Method You Trust for that Purpose. See the Discussion Under “Shepardize” in the “How to Use the New York Appellate Digest” Section on the Home Page.

This course organizes summaries of decisions by the New York State appellate courts (Appellate Division and Court of Appeals) released between May 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 which address issues in “Negligence.” Similar 1/2-to 1-hour CLE courses are continuously being submitted for approval to the NYS CLE Board for each month from January 2019 to the present, to provide readers with CLE credit simply for keeping up to date with the latest appellate decisions.

The “Negligence” decision-summaries posted weekly on the New York Appellate Digest website are organized in monthly pamphlets which are accessed in the “Update Service.” The monthly pamphlets comprise the written materials for these monthly CLE courses. A link to the written materials for this course (“Negligence Update Pamphlet May 2020”) is provided below.

As you listen to the course, you will hear a verification code. After finishing the course, print and fill out the attached “Attorney Affirmation,” including the verification code, your name, your signature, and the date you completed the course. Please also fill out the attached “Evaluation Survey” (the CLE Board requires that I collect and preserve the Evaluation Surveys). Scan the “Attorney Affirmation” and the “Evaluation Survey” and email them as attachments to me, Bruce Freeman, at NewYorkAppellateDigest@gmail.com. I will email to you the completed “New York CLE Certificate of Attendance,” as an attachment, awarding you credit for the 0.5 credit-hour course. Or, if you wish to send and receive hard copies by regular mail, send the “Attorney Affirmation” and “Evaluation Survey” to New York Appellate Digest, LLC, 126 Colonial Village Road, Rochester, New York 14625 and make sure to include your return address.

Click on the links below for the written materials (“Negligence Update Pamphlet May 2020”), the “Attorney Affirmation” (the “verification code” form) and the “Evaluation Survey.”

The media player for this course is at the bottom of the page.

Negligence Update Pamphlet May 2020

Negligence Update May 2020 Attorney Affirmation

Negligence Update May 2020 Evaluation Survey

Topics Covered in the “Negligence Update May 2020” Course Are Described Below (the podcast may not address every case in the written materials); Page Numbers Refer to the Written Materials, i.e., the “Negligence Update Pamphlet May 2020”

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, BANKRUPTCY.

ALTHOUGH THE PARTY TWICE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT LISTING THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AS AN ASSET, THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED AND THE ACTION WAS ADDED AS AN ASSET; AT THAT POINT THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE BECAME THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON THE PARTY’S INITIAL FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET, DID NOT APPLY TO THE TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT). 4

MUNICIPAL LAW.

CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM THE POLICE-KILLING OF AN 18-YEAR-OLD BOY AFTER HIS MOTHER CALLED 911 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 5

MUNICIPAL LAW.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE WHICH AFFECT THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ARE APPEALABLE; TWO-YEAR WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE MUNICIPALITIES; PRECLUDING EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED UPON DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (THIRD DEPT). 6

MUNICIPAL LAW.

MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WERE ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ 911 CALL AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PLAINTIFFS; MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 7

MUNICIPAL LAW.

PLAINTIFFS, THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY, REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-h HEARING(S) UNLESS EACH PLAINTIFF WAS PRESENT WHEN THE OTHER TESTIFIED; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE 50-h HEARING(S) (CT APP). 8

PRODUCTS LIABILITY.

MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE THE PARENTS FOR CONTRIBUTION ON A THEORY OF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE INFANT (SECOND DEPT). 9

RAPE SHIELD LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION.

ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SETTLED WHETHER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW APPLIES TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING, SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE QUESTIONING OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER ABOUT HER SEXUAL HISTORY TO PREVENT EMBARRASSMENT AND HARASSMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE (THIRD DEPT). 10

RES IPSA LOQUITUR.

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). 11

SLIP AND FALL.

DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 12

SLIP AND FALL.

DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BROKEN CURB WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 13

SLIP AND FALL.

DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLIED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT). 13

SLIP AND FALL.

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THE UNEVEN SEWER GRATE WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT; THEREFORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF NEVER SHIFTED TO THE PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 14

SLIP AND FALL.

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE PURSUANT TO A 2019 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION; VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). 15

SLIP AND FALL.

QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO REPAIR; SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOT NYC, PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). 16

SLIP AND FALL.

THE EXISTENCE OF A HANDRAIL ON THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL ON THE RIGHT (FIRST DEPT). 17

SLIP AND FALL.

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ON THE FLOOR RESULTED FROM A RECURRING LEAK WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ROOF-REPAIR CONTRACTORS HIRED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BUT WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO THE CONTRACTORS (FIRST DEPT). 17

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

ALTHOUGH THE CAR DEALER, DUE TO AN ERROR, DID NOT SUBMIT THE CORRECT REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MANDATED FIVE-DAY PERIOD, THAT DEFECT DID NOT INVALIDATE THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE DRIVER INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THE DEALER WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). 19

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE COLLISION CASE; THE TRUCK DRIVER BREACHED HIS DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN (FIRST DEPT). 20