Personal Injury Update April May 2023

Personal Injury Update April May 2023

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

Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 1 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 in April and May 2023 which address issues in “Personal Injury.”

The “Personal Injury” 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 CLE update courses. Links to the written materials for this course (“Personal Injury Reversal Report April 2023” and “Personal Injury Reversal Report May 2023) are 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 1 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 (“Personal Injury Reversal Report April 2023” and “Personal Injury Reversal Report May 2023), the “Attorney Affirmation” (the “verification code” form) and the “Evaluation Survey.”

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

Personal Injury Reversal Report April 2023

Personal Injury Reversal Report May 2023

Attorney Affirmation Personal Injury April May 2023

Evaluation Survey Personal Injury Update April May 2023

Topics Covered in the “Personal Injury Update April May 2023” 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 Pages in the “Personal Injury Reversal Report April 2023” and “Personal Injury Reversal Report May 2023”

 

APRIL 2023 PERSONAL INJURY REVERSAL REPORT

ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, DEMOLITION DERBY. 4

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SIGNED A RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY BEFORE ATTENDING THE DEMOLITION DERBY, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK BY FAILING TO INSTALL SUFFICIENT BARRIERS TO PROTECT SPECTATORS FROM THE VEHICLES IN THE DERBY (THIRD DEPT). 4

ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW. 5

THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE VIABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE AS IT APPLIES TO SCHOOL SPORTS; AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE DOCTRINE SHOULD BE ABANDONED (CT APP). 5

CHILD VICTIMS ACE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, FAMILY LAW. 6

THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CIVIL RIGHTS CAUSES F ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983; THE DUTY TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE UNDER THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW APPLIES ONLY TO “PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE” FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE TEACHERS (THIRD DEPT). 6

CHILD VICTIMS ACT, COURT OF CLAIMS. 8

ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTENTS OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE IN COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11 ARE STRICT AND JURISDICTIONAL, THE CLAIMANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLEGE EVIDENTIARY FACTS (SECOND DEPT). 8

CHILD VICTIMS ACT, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION. 9

NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A SINGLE ALLEGED ACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE WHICH OCCURRED IN NEW YORK IN 1975 OR 1976 WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS ON A FIELD TRIP; THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY A CONNECTICUT RESIDENT AGAINST A CONNECTICUT DEFENDANT AND ALLEGED SEVERAL OTHER ACTS OF ABUSE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN CONNECTICUT; BECAUSE THE ALLEGED TORT TOOK PLACE IN NEW YORK, THE CONNECTICUT PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT). 9

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW. 10

PETITIONER, A CORRECTION OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED MOVING LAUNDRY BAGS BLOCKING A HALLWAY IN THE JAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-C BENEFITS; ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE ARTICLE 78 TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED THE MERITS (FOURTH DEPT). 10

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 12

THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS HAVE HELD THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (K) WILL NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAS HELD THE VIOLATION OF THAT SAME PROVISION SUPPORTS A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT). 12

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE. 13

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT). 13

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MUNICIPAL LAW. 14

MEDICAL RECORDS DEMONSTRATED THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE A SEVERED NERVE; THEREFORE THE MEDICAL FACILITY WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 14

RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW, POLICE OFFICER INJURED AT WORK. 15

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED HIS CHAIR TO START TO TIP OVER BACKWARDS WHEN THE WHEELS CAUGHT IN THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE INCIDENT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). 15

SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD-TENANT, CONTRACT LAW. 16

HERE THE LEASE MADE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND MADE THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NON-STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE CRACKED STEP WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE FACT THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT WAS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT). 16

SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW. 17

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT). 17

SLIP AND FALL. 18

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). 18

SLIP AND FALL. 19

THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT). 19

TOXIC TORTS, MARITIME LAW, FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA), TRUSTS AND ESTATES. 19

UNDER THE JONES ACT OHIO HAD JURISDICTION TO APPOINT ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT WHO ALLEGEDLY DIED OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS ON MERCHANT MARINE SHIPS; THE NEW YORK EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE WAS TIMELY AND PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OHIO ADMINISTRATORS (FIRST DEPT). 19

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, LEASED CAR, GRAVES AMENDMANT. 21

THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE; THEREFORE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 21

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INSURANCE LAW, EXAMINATION UNDER OATH, ARBITRATION. 22

THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 22

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, EXAMINATION UNDER OATH. 23

THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH BREACHED A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE ENTITLING THE INSURER TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONCOVERAGE (FIRST DEPT). 23

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW. 24

A FIRE DISTRICT CANNOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE UNDER A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR THE ACTIONS OF A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER DRIVING A FIRE TRUCK WHERE THE DRIVER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RECKLESS-DISREGARD STANDARD FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES (CT APP). 24

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW. 25

THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER MADE A LEFT TURN INTO TO THE PATH OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WITHOUT CHECKING FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT). 25

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. 26

EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (THIRD DEPT). 26

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, INDEMNIFICATION, CONTRIBUTION. 27

IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT). 27

 

MAY 2023 PERSONAL INJURY REVERSAL REPORT

BATTERY, EMPLOYMENT LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. 4

THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR; PLAINTIFF COULD RECOVER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM THE LAW FIRM AND DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY FROM THE OWNER, WHO WAS A COEMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT). 4

BATTERY, MEDICAL RECORDS. 5

PLAINTIFF NURSE WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT’S HOSPITAL; SHE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF ANY NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PATIENT’S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT). 5

CHILD VICTIMS ACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT OF CLAIMS. 6

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT PROCEEDING, THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE TIME WHEN THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TOOK PLACE; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). 6

CHILD VICTIMS ACT, COURT OF CLAIMS. 7

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT PROCEEDING, THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE TIME WHEN THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TOOK PLACE; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). 7

DUTY OF CARE, INJURED POLICE OFFICER. 8

WALMART DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER INJURED BY ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER AFTER RESPONDING TO A THEFT AT A WALMART STORE (FOURTH DEPT). 8

GATE FELL ON PLAINTIFF, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, CREATION OF DANGEROUS CONDITION. 9

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 9

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 10

AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT). 10

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 11

PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING A HEAVY COMPRESSOR ON A PLANK OVER A TWO-FOOT-DEEP TRENCH WHEN THE PLANK BROKE; THE INJURY WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS AN ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). 11

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW. 12

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MEASURES TAKEN TO PREVENT THE LADDER FROM FALLING, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT). 12

LANDLORD-TENANT, CRIMES BY INTRUDERS. 13

IN THESE TWO CASES, INTRUDERS ENTERED AN APARTMENT BUILDING THROUGH EXTERIOR DOORS WHICH, ALLEGEDLY, WERE UNLOCKED AND MURDERED VICTIMS WHO WERE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED; THE FACT THAT THE VICTIMS WERE TARGETED WAS NOT AN “INTERVENING ACT” WHICH RELIEVED THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW (CT APP). 13

MUNICIPAL LAW, SPECIAL RELATIONASHIP, CHILD VICTIMS ACT. 14

THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT, NOTING A SPLIT OF AUTHORITY, DETERMINED THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SET FORTH ALLEGATIONS WHICH DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HER AND THE COUNTY; THEREFORE THE COUNTY COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF WHILE IN FOSTER CARE (FOURTH DEPT). 14

MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM. 15

CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). 15

RELEASES. 16

THE RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF BEFORE TAKING A MANDATORY COLLEGE FITNESS-EDUCATION COURSE PRECLUDED HER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COLLEGE ALLEGING INJURIES SUSTAINED TAKING THE COURSE (SECOND DEPT). 16

SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTICE NOTICE, WARNINGS. 17

DEFENDANTS IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE MAT AND WARNING SIGN PLACED IN THE AREA WERE INADEQUATE (FIRST DEPT). 17

SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. 18

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED PRIOR TO FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECTIVE CONDITION (THIRD DEPT). 18

SLIP AND FALL, CONTRACTORS, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. 19

IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 19

SLIP AND FALL, CREATION OF SIDEWALK DEFECT. 20

THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TRUCKS TO DRIVE OVER THE DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). 20

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW. 21

STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE; FAILING TO SEE WHAT THERE IS TO SEE IS NEGLIGENCE; ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 21

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VICARIOUS LIABILITY, CORPORATION LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW. 22

THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT). 22

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE. 23

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT). 23

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. 24

ALTHOUGH INJURY IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO WORK IS USUALLY NOT COVERED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION APPLIED BECAUSE CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION AND ON HIS WAY TO PICK UP A POLICE VEHICLE WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT). 24

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. 26

ALTHOUGH MRNACAJ GESTURED THAT SALIAN COULD PULL OUT OF A DRIVEWAY INTO MRNACAJ’S LANE, MRNACAJ COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT SALIAN WOULD CONTINUE INTO THE OTHER LANE WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK, MRNACAJ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 26

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, SPECIAL EMPLOYEE. 27

DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FIRST DEPT). 27

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, STRESS, HEART ATTACK. 28

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE STRESS CAUSED BY INTERACTION WITH CLAIMANT’S SUPERVISOR AND CLAIMANT’S HEART ATTACK (THIRD DEPT). 28