Personal Injury Update April – June 2022 – Part 1 of 3

Personal Injury Update April – June 2022 – Part 1 of 3

(Nontransitional) Prerecorded Audio (On Demand/Recorded-Audio)

Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 3.5 CLE Credit Hours

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 April 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022 which address issues in “Personal Injury,” including Negligence, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability, Labor Law-Construction Law and Workers’ Compensation.

The “Personal Injury” decision-summaries posted weekly on the New York Appellate Digest website are organized in monthly Reversal Reports which are accessed in the “Update Service.” The monthly Reversal Reports comprise the written materials for these monthly CLE courses. The course consists of three parts, each with its own podcast page. Part 1 is based on the Personal Injury Reversal Report for April, 2022; Part 2 is based on the Reversal Report for May, 2022; and Part 3 is based on the Reversal Report for June 2022.

As you listen to the course, you will hear verification codes. After finishing the Part 3 of the course, print and fill out the “Attorney Affirmation,” including the verification codes, 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). The links to the “Attorney Affirmation” and the “Evaluation Survey” are on the podcast page for Part 3 of this course. 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 3.5 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 link below for the written material for Part 1: Personal Injury Reversal Report April, 2022.

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

Links to the Attorney Affirmation and Evaluation Form are on the podcast page for Part 3 of this course.

Personal Injury Reversal Report April 2022

Topics Covered in the “Personal Injury Reversal Report April 2022” (Part 1 of this Course) Are Described Below; The Numbers are the Page Numbers in the Report 

APRIL 2022 REVERSAL REPORT

BILLS OF PARTICULAR, SUPPPLEMENTAL VS AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, NEW INJURIES. 6

THE DOCUMENT LABELED A “SUPPLEMENTAL” BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS ACTUALLY AN “AMENDED” BILL OF PARTICULARS BECAUSE IT ADDED NEW INJURIES AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 6

BUS-PASSENGER INJURY. 7

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE SUPPORT FOR PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S CLAIM THE MOVEMENT OF THE BUS WHICH CAUSED HER TO FALL WAS “UNUSUAL AND VIOLENT” (SECOND DEPT). 7

HUNTING-RELATED SHOOTING, SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 8

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE HUNTING TURKEY WHEN DEFENDANT SHOT PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT). 8

INMATE INJURY, CONTAMINATED WATER, COUNTY LIABILITY FOR JAIL CONDITIONS. 9

PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND DEPT). 9

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CLEANING AS COVERED ACTIVITY. 10

WHETHER “CLEANING” IS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE CLEANING WORK IS “ROUTINE;” “ROUTINE” CLEANING WORK IS NOT COVERED (CT APP). 10

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ELEVATORS. 11

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 11

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FALLING PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS. 12

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT). 12

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FOLLOWING ORDERS. 13

PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO LIFT A HEAVY BOX MANUALLY; THE FACT THAT A FORKLIFT WAS AVAILABLE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; A WORKER IS EXPECTED TO FOLLOW ORDERS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). 13

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION. 14

HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT). 14

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDERS. 15

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CASE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND SHIFTED; DEFENDANT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF TOLD HIS SUPERVISOR HE LOST HIS BALANCE AND JUMPED FROM THE LADDER, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). 15

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDERS. 16

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP). 16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, OBJECT LEANING AGAINST WALL FALLS. 17

A HEAVY PUMP, 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH WAS LEANING AGAINST THE WALL, TIPPED OVER AND STRUCK THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). 17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDERS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION NOT PREMATURE. 18

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS A-FRAME LADDER-FALL CASE; ALTHOUGH NO DEPOSITIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN, THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT). 18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 19

BOARDING UP A VACANT HOUSE WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT). 19

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 20

PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 20

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 21

THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). 21

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTRACT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT, CHOICE OF VENUE. 22

THE VENUE DESIGNATION IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT). 22

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 23

ALTHOUGH THE SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED TWO DAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR-NINETY-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED FOR THREE DAYS BETWEEN THE FILING AND THE DENIAL OF THE FIRST ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE MUNICIPALITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM; THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 23

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS, REVIEW OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART. 25

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT REGISTERED NURSE AND DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT GAVE PLAINTIFF THE APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS AFTER DISOVERING A LUMP IN PLAINTIFF’S BREAST CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTOR WHO COSIGNED THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CHART (FIRST DEPT). 25

MUNICIPAL LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, DISABILITY. 26

A PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTER INJURED WHILE TRAINING TO COMPLETE A FIRE BASIC TRAINING PROGRAM WAS INJURED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, ENTITLING HIM TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A DISBILITY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). 26

NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION. 27

PLAINTIFF DANCER STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DANCER AND THEIR EMPLOYER, THE NEW YORK CITY BALLET (NYCB), IN CONNECTION WITH INTIMATE IMAGES ALLEGEDLY DISCLOSED BY THE DEFENDANT DANCER (FIRST DEPT). 2

REBUTTAL EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN REBUTTAL RE: DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT. 28

THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY; HERE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT, EVEN THOUGH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF (FIRST DEPT). 28

SLIP AND FALL, CORPORATION LAW, OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER LIABILITY. 29

A CORPORATE OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NONFEASANCE (DOING NOTHING), AS OPPOSED MISFEASANCE (FIRST DEPT). 29

SLIP AND FALL, CREATION OF DANGEROUS CONDITION. 30

IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, HERE THE INSTALLATION OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF A STAIRWELL WHICH ALLEGEDLY BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (SECOND DEPT). 30
SLIP AND FALL, INSURANCE LAW, “USE” OF A VEHICLE. 31
PLAINTIFF’S FALLING INTO A HOLE ON THE PREMISES AFTER HIS TRUCK WAS LOADED WAS NOT THE RESULT OF “USE” OF THE TRUCK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (FIRST DEPT). 31

SLIP AND FALL, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM. 31

THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF THE PETITIONERS’ CHILD’S INJURY AT THE TIME IT OCCURRED DOES NOT MEAN THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 31

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DISCOVERY, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, SEALING OF RECORDS. 33

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(B), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT). 33

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, FAILURE TO YEILD. 34

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN AND FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FIRST DEPT). 34

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM. 35

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW. THE RIGHT LANE WAS FOR RIGHT TURNS ONLY; THE MIDDLE LANE WAS FOR EITHER GOING STRAIGHT OR TURNING RIGHT; HERE THE DRIVER IN THE FAR RIGHT LANE DID NOT TURN RIGHT AND STRUCK THE CAR IN THE MIDDLE LANE WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; THE DRIVER IN THE MIDDLE LANE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). 35

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM. 36

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S BUS, THE AUTHORITY GAINED TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM WHEN IT INVESTIGATED THE ACCIDENT AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT). 36

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, INJURED ON THE WAY TO WORK. 37

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHILE HE WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE TO WORK (USUALLY NOT COMPENSABLE), HIS INJURY WAS FOUND COMPENSABLE BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE (WCLJ) UNDER THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION; BECAUSE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). 37

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, SUCCESSIVE INJURIES. 38

A SUBSEQUENT INJURY TO THE SAME BODY “MEMBER” WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PERCENTAGE LOSS OF THE PRIOR AWARD (CT APP). 38

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. 39

BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A NONSCHEDULE AWARD DUE TO RETIREMENT, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD (THIRD DEPT). 39

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. 40

THERE WAS NO INDICATION ON THE FORM AND NO REGULATION REQUIRING CLAIMANT TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE RB-89 FORM FOR EACH CLAIM; THE BOARD THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO REVIEW THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S (WCLJ’S) DECISION ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT). 40

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART 2 OF THE COURSE