You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion to deem the notice of claim timely filed should have been granted even if the excuse for the delay was not reasonable. The notice of claim was one day late:

CUCF [defendant City University Construction Fund] acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day statute of limitations period due to the fact that petitioner filed his notice of claim only one day late, on the 91st day after the accident occurred. Moreover, the notice of claim provides the essential facts constituting the claim and further describes CUCF’s alleged negligence and alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6) and 200, and certain Industrial Code provisions.

Additionally, petitioner has demonstrated that his one-day delay in serving the notice of claim on CUCF did not substantially prejudice CUCF’s defense on the merits. CUCF had actual knowledge of the facts constituting petitioner’s claim only one day after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period and thus, had ample opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation. …

Even if petitioner’s excuse for the delay in filing the notice of claim, specifically, that such delay was due to a clerical error made by the process server, was unreasonable, “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application,” especially in a case such as this one where respondent had actual notice of the essential facts constituting petitioner’s claim and where respondent was not prejudiced by the delay … . Matter of Dominguez v City Univ. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08084, First Dept 11-27-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, (NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW,  MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff sought to change the dare of the accident from October 12, 2012, to August 15, 2012:

Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on rainwater that came in through negligently maintained windows in the hallway of defendants’ building. In support of her motion to amend, plaintiff stated that she originally alleged that the accident occurred on October 13, 2012, but that after reviewing her medical records she realized that she was mistaken and that the accident actually occurred on August 15, 2012, the day before she sought treatment at the hospital.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion, as defendants demonstrated that the delay in notifying them that plaintiff had incorrectly identified the date of the accident prejudiced their ability to investigate the incident and to defend the action using surveillance videotapes of the hallway … . Defendants showed that, after learning of plaintiff’s claim, they retrieved surveillance tapes of the alleged accident date of October 13th, which showed that no accident occurred on that date, but that they were no longer able to retrieve videotapes from August 2012 by the time plaintiff informed them of the claimed error in the pleadings. Furthermore, the August 2012 hospital record plaintiff relies upon reflects that she sought treatment from a podiatrist for an unrelated foot condition, and does not reference any fall the previous day … . Otero v Walton Ave. Assoc. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08083, First Dept 11-27-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/COMPLAINT (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

,

ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the introduction of a handgun alleged to be the same type used in the crime and recovered three months after the crime was not error:

The court providently exercised its discretion in admitting a black nine millimeter pistol, the same type of weapon that, according to other evidence, was used in the crime. The pistol was recovered, pursuant to a search warrant, from defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment three months after the commission of the crime, and the evidence showed that defendant resided in that apartment. This evidence was relevant to show that defendant had access to that type of weapon, and it thus tended to establish his involvement in the charged crimes … . The jury could have drawn a reasonable inference that the weapon was in defendant’s possession at the time of the crime, and the availability of other inferences went to weight rather than admissibility. Furthermore, the probative value of this evidence, which the court carefully limited, outweighed any prejudicial effect. People v Birkett, 2018 NY Slip Op 08072, First Dept 11-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/HANDGUNS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the stipulation signed by plaintiff teacher, who agreed to resign in return for discontinuing the disciplinary hearing, was binding under contract principles, despite the inapplicability of CPLR 2104 to administrative proceedings. After signing the stipulation, plaintiff changed his mind:

In the stipulation, DOE (Department of Education] agreed to discontinue the disciplinary hearing on the pending misconduct charges and to take no further disciplinary action against plaintiff, in exchange for which plaintiff agreed “to irrevocably retire from his employment with [DOE] … .” The agreement was signed by plaintiff, his counsel, and DOE’s counsel … . Annexed to the stipulation was a letter signed by plaintiff and addressed to District Superintendent Karen Watts stating, “I hereby irrevocably retire from [DOE] … .” The stipulation contained a signature line for Superintendent Watts, who signed it several days later.

Before Superintendent Watts signed the stipulation, plaintiff notified DOE that he had changed his mind and wanted to rescind the stipulation. He argues that the stipulation was unenforceable when he changed his mind because not all the parties had signed it. …

Although CPLR 2104 is not applicable to agreements entered into in administrative proceedings, the stipulation signed by plaintiff and counsel acting on behalf of DOE is binding under general contract principles … . Plaintiff failed to show the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, or that counsel lacked DOE’s consent to enter into the stipulation … . Plaintiff’s agreement to retire was irrevocable, and plaintiff understood its consequences. His change of mind is not a cause sufficient to set aside his agreement … . Nor is his parol evidence, offered to show that the parties did not intend to be bound by the stipulation until Superintendent Watts had signed it, admissible to add to or vary the terms of the writing … . Matter of Nobile v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08065, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 2104  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYC Civil Service Commission (CSC) properly upheld the termination of  the petitioner correction officers for using excessive force against an inmate. The court noted that, because the petitioners chose to appeal the determination of the administrative law judge to the CSC, instead of bringing an Article 78, the court’s review powers are extremely limited:

Civil Service Law § 76(1) permits a person whose civil service employment has been terminated to “appeal from such determination either by an application to the state or municipal commission having jurisdiction, or by an application to the court in accordance with [article 78].” If the former option is chosen, “[t]he decision of such civil service commission shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court” … . The Court of Appeals has clarified that, despite the plain language in the statute, judicial review is not completely foreclosed … . Rather, the article 78 court, instead of being guided by the substantial evidence or arbitrary and capricious standards of review, is limited to reviewing whether “the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction” … .

Petitioners argue that CSC acted unconstitutionally because it relied on the statements of the inmates, who never testified, thus depriving petitioners of any chance to cross-examine them. However, this point is unpreserved. Petitioners fail to point to anything in the record showing that they ever sought to cross-examine or call the inmates and were denied that opportunity. More importantly, they never protested that their constitutional rights were being violated. This Court has “no discretionary authority” to “reach[] an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice” in an article 78 proceeding challenging an administrative determination … , including issues touching on due process … and evidentiary challenges … . Matter of Almanzar v City of New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 08062, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the denial of defendant employer’s (SLSCO’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff employees’ breach of contract complaint. The complaint alleged that SLSCO and the subcontractor, PMJ, which employed plaintiffs, breached the prime employment contract by failing to pay the prevailing wage for work done for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The court noted the employees were third party beneficiaries of the contract and the clause in the contract which purported to prohibit third-party actions seeking the prevailing wage would be void as against public policy:

Plaintiffs are employees of PMJ. They commenced this action for breach of contract against PMJ and SLSCO, predicated upon a third-party contract beneficiary theory, alleging that PMJ failed to pay them prevailing wages as required by the terms of the prime contract … . …

Labor Law § 220(3) provides, in pertinent part, that wages paid to laborers, workers, or mechanics on a public works project shall be the prevailing rate of wages in that locality, and that the public works contracts, including subcontracts thereunder “shall contain a provision that each laborer, workman or mechanic, employed by such contractor, subcontractor or other person about or upon such public work shall be paid the wages herein”. This statute “has as its entire aim the protection of workingmen against being induced, or obliged, to accept wages below the prevailing rate” and “must be construed with the liberality needed to carry out its beneficent purposes”… . In keeping with this liberal reading of the statute, the courts of this state have consistently held that, in public works contracts, a subcontractor’s employees have both an administrative remedy under the statute as well as a third-party right to make a breach of contract claim for underpayment against the general contractor … . Wroble v Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng’g of N.Y., P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08061, First Dept 11-27-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW (PREVAILING WAGE, PREVAILING WAGE, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (CONTRACT LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOR LAW, EMPLOYEES OF SUBCONTRACTOR CAN SUE FOR THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 220 AS THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that the plaintiff in this traffic accident case did not place her prior knee injuries in controversy and the defendants’ demand for the related medical authorizations should not have been granted. The First Department held plaintiff had not waived her patient-physician privilege regarding the knee injuries. Plaintiff had alleged injury to her back, neck and shoulder, but had also alleged a loss of enjoyment of life, including her inability to wear heels. Defendants argued that her prior knee injury and surgery were relevant to those same issues. The First Department decided not to follow the 2nd Department’s contrary holding:

Contrary to defendants’ argument, neither plaintiff’s bill of particulars nor her deposition testimony places her prior knee injuries in controversy. In paragraph 10 of her bill of particulars, plaintiff limits the injuries she sustained in the 2014 accident to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder. Accordingly, the specified bodily injuries that are affirmatively placed in controversy are the spinal and shoulder injuries. The claims for lost earnings and loss of enjoyment of life alleged in the bill of particulars are limited to these specified injuries. Plaintiff does not mention her prior knee treatments. Nor does she claim that the injuries to her knees were exacerbated or aggravated as a result of the 2014 automobile accident. * * *

Defendants cite to [2nd] Department precedent in support of their argument that the condition of plaintiff’s knees is material and necessary to their defense. The [2nd] Department has held that a party places his or her entire medical condition in controversy through “broad allegations of physical injuries and claimed loss of enjoyment of life due to those injuries” … .

We are not persuaded by the reasoning of the [2nd] Department. In our view, the [2nd] Department’s precedent cannot be reconciled with the Court of Appeals’ rulings that the physician-patient privilege is waived only for injuries affirmatively placed in controversy. Brito v Gomez, 2018 NY Slip Op 08105, First Dept 11-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))/PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLACE HER PRIOR KNEE INJURIES IN CONTROVERSY BY ALLEGING A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT WAIVE HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE RE: THE KNEE-INJURY MEDICAL RECORDS, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CONTRARY RULING, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS AWARE OF A DEFECT IN THE SOFTBALL PLAYING FIELD, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS NEGLIGENTLY REPAIRED AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant city had notice of a defect in a softball field, whether the defect was negligently repaired, and whether plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from playing baseball on the field:

Plaintiff Rory Martin was injured when, while playing softball on defendant’s field, he unsuccessfully attempted to jump over a hole that was in the field near home plate. Plaintiff testified at his 50-h hearing that a six-inch-deep hole, three-to-four feet long, and four-to-five feet wide, near the right hand batter’s box, had been filled in with loose clay and appeared to be level when he stepped into the batter’s box. After plaintiff safely reached first base and additional players used the batter’s box, the hole became more exposed and surprised plaintiff as he ran home to try to score. When plaintiff saw the size of the hole and attempted to jump over it, his left foot struck a clay-obscured edge of the hole, causing him to suffer a fractured ankle.

Under the circumstances presented, triable issues exist as to whether the City had notice of this particular defect, and, if so, whether the City negligently or improperly repaired the defect, whether the playing field was as safe as it appeared to be, whether plaintiff’s injury arose as a consequence of a condition or practice common to the particular sport, and whether plaintiff assumed the risk of playing on the subject field … . Martin v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07946, First Dept 11-20-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS AWARE OF A DEFECT IN THE SOFTBALL PLAYING FIELD, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS NEGLIGENTLY REPAIRED AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (NEGLIGENCE, SOFTBALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS AWARE OF A DEFECT IN THE SOFTBALL PLAYING FIELD, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS NEGLIGENTLY REPAIRED AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SPORTS (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, SOFTBALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS AWARE OF A DEFECT IN THE SOFTBALL PLAYING FIELD, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS NEGLIGENTLY REPAIRED AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant’s request to preclude recording of phone calls he made from jail was properly denied. Defendant was deemed to have consented to the recordings:

“Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of the call(s) based on his receipt of multiple forms of notice that his calls would be recorded, and he was not entitled to separate notice that the calls might be subpoenaed by prosecutors” … . People v Mason, 2018 NY Slip Op 07944, First Dept 11-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PHONE CALLS FROM JAIL, DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/PHONE CALLS (CRIMINAL LAW, JAIL,  DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/RECORDINGS (PHONE CALL, JAIL, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE RECORDING OF PHONE CALLS MADE FROM JAIL AND TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE RECORDINGS AS TRIAL EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant car dealership (Port Motors) had not transferred ownership of the car to the purchaser (Love) at the time of the accident and was therefore liable to plaintiff as the owner of the vehicle. Plaintiff was injured when the driver (Lemos) struck a barricade which in turn struck plaintiff, who was walking on the sidewalk:

Because Port Motors “fail[ed] to comply with the statutory requirements regarding vehicle registration procedures . . . [it] is estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle and is fully liable to the plaintiff as if it were the owner’ of the vehicle” … . Although this Court has held that “title to a motor vehicle is transferred when the parties intend such transfer to occur” … , here, there is no evidence that the parties intended to transfer title to the vehicle from Port Motors to Love prior to the accident. …

The metal barricade standing in the roadway was not “a sudden and unexpected circumstance which le[ft] little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or cause[d] [Lemos] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he] [had to] make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct . . . “… . Rather, by colliding with the barricade and propelling it onto the sidewalk, where it struck a pedestrian, Lemos failed to both operate his vehicle in a manner that was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances  … and to see what was there to be seen through the ordinary use of his senses … . Bunn v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07936, First Dept 11-20-18

NEGLIGENCE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (OWNER LIABILITY, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS  (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

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