You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel told the defendant he could receive a 75-year sentence if convicted on the charged offenses, when the most the defendant could receive was 15 to 30 years. Defense counsel also erroneously told the defendant the sex trafficking offense to which he pled guilty would not make him subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA):

The evidence, including a letter from defense counsel to the prosecutor during plea negotiations and the testimony of defendant and defense counsel at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, established that defendant and defense counsel perceived a viable defense to the sex trafficking charges and were leaning toward going to trial, but defendant—under the misapprehension that he risked the possibility of an aggregate maximum term of imprisonment that would be the equivalent of a life sentence for him—relied upon defense counsel’s erroneous advice in accepting a plea that addressed his primary concerns by providing the ostensible benefit of greatly reducing his sentencing exposure while also avoiding any SORA implications. We thus conclude on this record that defendant was denied meaningful representation inasmuch as defense counsel’s erroneous advice compromised the fairness of the process as a whole by depriving defendant of the ability to make an intelligent choice between pleading guilty or proceeding to trial … . People v Oliver, 2018 NY Slip Op 04885, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

PETITION SEEKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE INABILITY TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE NURSING HOME RESIDENT’S ESTRANGED WIFE, COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER THEORY NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AGENCY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, annulling the determination of the Erie County Department of Social Services, held that petitioner’s application for medical assistance should not have been denied on the ground that the financial resources available to the nursing home resident’s estranged wife could not be determined. The court noted that it may not consider any theories argued on appeal that were not raised before the agency

[18 NYCRR] Section 360-2.3 (a) (2) provides that a medical assistance “applicant/recipient will not have eligibility denied or discontinued solely because he/she does not possess and cannot obtain information about the income or resources of a nonapplying legally responsible relative who is not living with him/her.” Although denial of an application may nonetheless be appropriate under section 360-2.3 (a) (3) if an applicant/recipient refuses to grant permission for the examination of non-public records, here the parties do not dispute that petitioner and the resident cooperated with all efforts to obtain information from the resident’s estranged wife.

We reject respondent’s contention that the determination should be confirmed because, in the absence of a showing that denial would subject the resident to undue hardship, denial of petitioner’s application was permissible pursuant to 18 NYCRR 360-4.10. Regardless of the merits of that contention, we note that ” [i]t is the settled rule that judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency’ ” Matter of Waterfront Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Healthcare v New York State Dept. of Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 04881, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​MEDICAID (PETITION SEEKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE INABILITY TO DETERMINED THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE NURSING HOME RESIDENT’S ESTRANGED WIFE (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MEDICAID, PETITION SEEKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE INABILITY TO DETERMINED THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE NURSING HOME RESIDENT’S ESTRANGED WIFE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, MEDICAID, PETITION SEEKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE INABILITY TO DETERMINED THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE NURSING HOME RESIDENT’S ESTRANGED WIFE, COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER THEORY NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AGENCY  (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction under a weight of the evidence analysis, determined there was insufficient proof that defendant intended to destroy a motorcycle that was in the garage in which she started a fire. She testified she started the fire because she was angry with her husband and she expected he would put the fire out. The fire was started in an area of the garage which was not near the motorcycle:

We agree with defendant, however, that the verdict finding her guilty of criminal mischief in the third degree is against the weight of the evidence. County Court instructed the jurors that defendant was guilty of that crime if they found that she intentionally “damage[d] property of another person in an amount exceeding $250,” specifically “a Suzuki motorcycle.” The People presented evidence that a motorcycle belonging to defendant’s husband was completely destroyed by the fire that defendant allegedly set, a loss valued at over $4,000. No evidence was offered of the value of any damage caused by defendant prior to the fire, and the only evidence of how and why the fire started came from defendant’s statements to law enforcement, wherein she stated that she did not know why she started the fire, but that she was angry at her husband with whom she had been fighting and thought that he would return to the garage to put out the fire. Moreover, defendant told law enforcement that she started the fire by igniting a fleece blanket in a part of the garage different from where the motorcycle was located. Defendant’s statements are consistent with the testimony of the fire protection inspector regarding the origin of the fire and are not contradicted by any other evidence in the record. Thus, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree as charged to the jury …, we conclude that the jury’s determination that defendant set the fire with the intention of damaging her husband’s motorcycle is against the weight of the evidence … . People v Colbert, 2018 NY Slip Op 04879, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS  (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE  (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL MISCHIEF (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT))/INTENT (CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF, (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of an employment dispute should not have been granted. The Fourth Department found that the dispute concerned whether an employee of a community college was improperly dismissed (by eliminating the position). The matter was deemed arbitrable based upon the language of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the grievance. Under the CBA, if a position is “retrenched” the action is not arbitrable. Although the term “retrenched” was used in eliminating the position, the grievance alleged the employee was improperly dismissed under the guise of “retrenchment:”

We … agree with respondent that the grievance, as properly construed, should be submitted to arbitration. The CBA defines “grievance,” in relevant part, as “a claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of this agreement, except as excluded herein.” Pursuant to the CBA, a grievance may be submitted to arbitration if it remains unresolved after the second stage of the grievance procedure. Although the CBA specifies several exclusions from the definition of a “grievance” that are therefore not subject to arbitration, including a decision by petitioner to retrench a position, all other grievances remain subject to arbitration. Contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that the arbitration clause at issue here is broad, despite the existence of such exclusions … .

Where, as here, “there is a broad arbitration clause and a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties’ [CBA], the court should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the [CBA], and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them”… . The grievance at issue concerns whether the member was improperly dismissed without just cause under the guise of retrenchment, and a reasonable relationship exists between the subject matter of the grievance and the general subject matter of the CBA … . Thus, ” it is for the arbitrator to determine whether the subject matter of the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provisions of the [CBA]’ ” … . Matter of Onondaga Community Coll. (Professional Adm’rs of Onondaga Community Coll. Fedn. of Teachers & Adm’rs), 2018 NY Slip Op 04878, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​ARBITRATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ARBITRATION, ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ARBITRATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice-skating slip and fall case should not have been granted. The claimant could not assume the risk created by a negligently maintained ice surface, and claimant’s awareness of the dangerous condition relates only to the issue of comparative fault (which does not preclude summary judgment):

We … agree with claimant that her claim is not barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. It is well settled that “[a claimant] will not be held to have assumed those risks that are not inherent . . . , i.e., not ordinary and necessary in the sport” … . Although the risk of falling while ice skating is ” inherent in and arise[s] out of the nature of the sport generally’ ” … , we conclude that skating on a negligently maintained ice surface is not a risk that is inherent in the sport. Contrary to defendant’s contention, under the circumstances presented here, claimant’s awareness of the poor ice conditions and her decision to continue skating for some period of time, apparently to have a photograph taken, relate only to the issue of her comparative fault, if any … . Wyzykowski v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04875, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ICE SKATING (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (ICE SKATING, (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (ICE SKATING, SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for battery alleging a medical procedure was performed without her consent:

“It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . Here, in moving under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), defendants attached all of the pleadings, which alleged, inter alia, that defendants “performed a procedure upon the Plaintiff while she was under general anesthesia without informing her or obtaining any consent, which conduct constituted a battery upon her.” Defendants also referenced and provided to the court the informed consent form executed by plaintiff that explicitly authorized the performance of a flexible sigmoidoscopy, but not a colonoscopy. The form further noted in relevant part that, “[i]f any unforeseen condition arises during the procedure calling for, in the physician’s judgment, additional procedures, treatments, or operations, [defendant is] authorize[d] . . . to do whatever he . . . deems advisable.” We conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a cause of action sounding in battery by alleging that she provided no consent to the performance of a colonoscopy … , and that the evidentiary submissions considered by the court, including the consent form, do not “establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action” sounding in battery … . McCarthy v Shah, 2018 NY Slip Op 04887, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/BATTERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against defendant public corporation was properly granted for only one of two accidents. The Fourth Department held that the defendant did not have timely actual knowledge of the first accident because there was no evidence defendant was provided with the relevant accident report:

While we agree with respondent that claimant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay … , “[t]he failure to offer an excuse for the delay is not fatal where . . . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondent]” … . …

… [W]e agree with claimant that he established that respondent would not be substantially prejudiced by any delay in serving the notice of claim. “[B]ecause the injur[ies] allegedly resulted from . . . fall[s] at a construction site, it is highly unlikely that the conditions existing at the time of the accident[s] would [still] have existed’ ” had the notice of claim been timely filed … . …

… [C]laimant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that respondent had timely actual knowledge of the first accident. Despite having engaged in pre-action discovery, claimant is unable to provide any evidence that the incident report related to the first accident was ever transmitted to respondent, and there was no mention of the first accident in the construction closeout report submitted to respondent. Inasmuch as there is no evidence that respondent received timely actual knowledge of the occurrence of the first accident, respondent could not have received timely actual knowledge of ” the injuries or damages’ ” resulting therefrom … . Matter of Szymkowiak v New York Power Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04482, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC CORPORATION (NOTICE OF CLAIM,  MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted:

“It is well established that [a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence”… . “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Here, there was sharply conflicting expert testimony with respect to whether plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms could have occurred without negligence on the part of defendant, and the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendants’ experts and reject the testimony of plaintiff’s expert … . We conclude that the court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as “the jury had ample basis to conclude that plaintiff’s postoperative condition was not attributable to any deviation from accepted community standards of medical practice by defendant” … , and thus the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent was not “palpably irrational or wrong” … . Clark v Loftus, 2018 NY Slip Op 04473, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, MOTION TO, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this vehicle-pedestrian traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated she suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (fractures in her foot). And defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that she sustained when a vehicle operated by defendant struck her foot while she was walking her bicycle on the street beneath an overpass. We agree with plaintiff, as limited by her brief, that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying that part of plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every reasonable inference  … , we conclude that defendant failed to meet his initial burden on his motion of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact, including whether he violated his ” common-law duty to see that which he should have seen [as a driver] through the proper use of his senses’ ” … and his statutory duty to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist[ or] pedestrian” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [a]).

Finally, it is uncontested that plaintiff established as a matter of law on her cross motion that she sustained fractures in her foot as a result of the accident and, therefore, she is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Luttrell v Vega, 2018 NY Slip Op 04468, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SERIOUS INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/SERIOUS INJURY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SERIOUS INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined neither party was entitled to summary judgment on Labor Law 240 (1), Labor Law 241 (6) and common law negligence causes of action stemming from plaintiff’s use of the top half of an extension ladder that slipped out from under him. With respect to the common law negligence cause of action against the property owner, the court explained:

Where the injured worker’s employer provides the allegedly defective equipment, the analysis turns on whether the defendant owner had the authority to supervise or control the work … . Where, however, the defendant owner provides the allegedly defective equipment, the legal standard “is whether the owner created the dangerous or defective condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof” … , because in that situation the defendant property owner “is possessed of the authority, as owner, to remedy the condition” of the defective equipment … . Contrary to defendants’ contention, they failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not create the dangerous condition of the ladder or have either actual or constructive notice of it. Moreover, “the absence of rubber shoes on a ladder is a visible and apparent defect,’ evidence of which may be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of constructive notice” … . Sochan v Mueller, 2018 NY Slip Op 04457, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH 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