You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant denied stealing the victim’s wallet. The trial evidence indicated there were security cameras on businesses which may have captured the events, Defendant alleged his attorney did not make any effort to investigate whether videos existed and did not interview a man who was present during the incident:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he alleged certain “non-record facts” that “are material and, if established, . . . would entitle him to relief” so as to warrant a hearing … . Defendant, in particular, averred that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to engage in needed discovery related to his claim that he did not take the victim’s wallet. The trial evidence established that the incident occurred in an area surrounded by businesses with security cameras installed and that defense counsel was aware of this fact. Defense counsel, according to defendant, did not investigate whether those security cameras captured the incident on video prior to trial and did not obtain the footage to determine whether it undercut the victim’s claim that defendant had robbed him. Defendant further noted that he was with another man when the incident occurred and alleged that defense counsel failed to interview that individual to learn whether his testimony would be helpful to the defense. If defense counsel failed without reason to investigate known proof that had the potential to corroborate defendant’s account of events, it “may have amounted to less than meaningful representation”  … . Inasmuch as those questions “cannot be determined on the motion papers, . . . we remit for a hearing where proof can be presented on” them … . People v Cruz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05476, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the convictions, determined defendant’s request to represent himself should have been granted:

At an apppearance on May 19, 2014, defendant’s counsel informed County Court (Drago, J.) that defendant wanted to represent himself at trial. The court duly inquired into defendant’s educational background, which included a GED earned in 2003, and engaged in an extensive colloquy with defendant emphasizing the importance of having counsel represent him. During this exchange, when asked to explain his decision, defendant gave the extraordinary response, “I don’t really have much explanation for it, just like I’ve been making bad choices, why not continue.” Defendant then illogically acknowledged this was a bad choice on his part. County Court understandably encouraged defendant to reconsider his decision, and directed that a transcript of the proceeding be provided to the trial judge who would make the decision on the application.

When the trial began on May 27, 2014, County Court (Catena, J.), having reviewed the transcript, directly addressed the representation issue with defendant. Defendant elaborated that he had decided to represent himself because he had been unrepresented for the “first seven months of incarceration” and felt he had “a better chance of representing [himself].” He continued, “So I feel like nobody’s going to fight for my life like I’m going to fight for it.” After confirming that assigned counsel was prepared to go forward, County Court denied defendant’s request to proceed pro se, reasoning that it would not be appropriate or a “wise choice” for defendant to do so. As understandable as that reasoning is, the issue is not whether defendant was making a prudent decision, but whether he had the capacity to knowingly waive his right to counsel … .While defendant’s initial extraordinary explanation raised a cause for concern, we conclude that his confirmation at trial demonstrates that he knowingly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel. Since defendant was improperly denied the right to proceed pro se, the judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial … . People v Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 05475, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)

DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation should not have been granted. The relevant period of postreadiness delay was due to motion practice by co-defendants and was therefore not chargeable to the People for any of the defendants:

The five codefendants who were named with defendant in the joint indictment were arrested and arraigned at various times. During the 27-day period that Supreme Court charged to the People as postreadiness delay, several of these codefendants were engaged in motion practice, including motions that were due but had not yet been filed, were awaiting the People’s response, or were awaiting the court’s decision. In a prosecution involving a single defendant, delay resulting from motion practice is not chargeable to the People (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]…). Likewise, periods of delay that result from motion practice by any codefendant in a joint prosecution are excludable as to all of them … . Defendant did not meet his burden to show that the delay resulting from his codefendants’ motion practice was unreasonably lengthy or that the exclusion provided by CPL 30.30 (4) (d) should not be applied here for any other reason … .

As the language of CPL 30.30 (4) (d) implies, a defendant’s remedy for delays caused by codefendants in a joint prosecution is to move for severance. Here, although defendant was represented by counsel throughout the pertinent period, he neither moved for severance at any time nor showed that good cause for severance existed … . Thus, the 27-day period charged by Supreme Court to the People as postreadiness delay should not have been added to the 163-day period of prereadiness delay, with the result that the People declared readiness within six months and complied with their statutory obligation. People v Chrysler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05477, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge to which the previously tried (and reversed) case had been reassigned, did not, pursuant to the Judiciary Law, have the power to issue a verdict based upon a review of the transcript of the prior non-jury trial. Manifest necessity required a mistrial. New trial will not violate double jeopardy rule:

As is relevant here, Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a trial judge “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he [or she] was not present and sitting therein as a judge.” This statute has been interpreted to allow a substitute judge to preside over an already-commenced jury trial or decide a purely legal question, but it prohibits a substitute judge from weighing testimony or making factual and credibility determinations when he or she did not hear the witnesses’ testimony firsthand …. .

Here, Judiciary Law § 21 precluded County Court from rendering a verdict inasmuch as this was a nonjury trial and, in deciding the ultimate issue of guilt, County Court was required to weigh testimony and make factual determinations based upon testimony it did not hear and observe … . In view of the improper comments and actions of County Court … that led to the case being reassigned after the close of proof, coupled with the application of Judiciary Law § 21, we find that a mistrial was manifestly necessary such that double jeopardy does not bar a retrial. Accordingly, we conclude that a new trial is warranted. People v Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 05474, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/RETRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, MANIFEST NECESSITY, MISTRIAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)

(1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the small claims action seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. The prior action between the same parties was a property dispute concerning a right-of-way. Although the small claims matter arose from the property dispute, pursuant to the permissive counterclaim rule, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The Third Department also determined the pretrial motion to dismiss the small claims matter should not have been granted, noting such a motion should rarely be entertained within the simplified small claims procedure:

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “‘once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Nevertheless, the permissive counterclaim rule operates to “save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action” so long as the second action is not based on “a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

A review of the record establishes that, although some of plaintiff’s allegations relate to events that predate the first action and are connected to defendants’ attempts in the first action to assert their rights as property owners, the monetary relief that plaintiff now seeks is different than the relief he obtained in the first action and would in no way impair the rights established by the first action. Thus, we find that County Court’s conclusion that the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff from raising his negligent infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims in this action was clearly erroneous … . Accordingly, we conclude that “substantial justice was not meted out according to the substantive law” as to these claims … .

We also find that County Court erred in addressing the merits of defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss as it related to the malicious prosecution claim inasmuch as informal and simplified procedures govern small claims actions (see UCCA 1804), and pretrial motions to dismiss should rarely be entertained … . In light of the fact that plaintiff, who appears pro se, has not yet had the opportunity to present his evidence at a hearing, we find that substantial justice will best be served by remittal to City Court for a prompt trial … . Rackowski v Araya, 2017 NY Slip Op 05481, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE ((1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/RES JUDICATA (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE (RES JUDICATA, PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/SMALL CLAIMS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/DISMISS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO (SMALL CLAIMS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/COUNTERCLAIMS (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING REMITTED FOR AGE-APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION CONCERNING THREE OF THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES.

The Third Department determined Family Court did not engage in an age-appropriate consultation concerning three of the children to determine their wishes in this “termination of parental rights” proceeding. The matter was remitted for that purpose:

Contrary to the argument by the attorney for the three younger children, the mere participation at the hearing and the giving of a closing statement, without more, by the attorney who represented Dawn, Summer and Samantha do not satisfy the age-appropriate consultation requirement of Family Ct Act § 1089 (d). The closing statement by the attorney for the three younger children was devoid of any statement indicating the preferences of Dawn, Summer or Samantha … .. Nor does the attorney for the three younger children point to any other evidence in the record that reflects their wishes. We are mindful that the court is ultimately guided by the best interests of the children … . The Legislature, however, has made it explicitly clear that a permanency hearing “shall” include an age-appropriate consultation … , carry significance and cannot be lightly overlooked. Given that the record does not disclose the wishes of Dawn, Summer or Samantha, the matter must be remitted so that Family Court may conduct the age-appropriate consultation under Family Ct Act § 1089 (d) with respect to these children. Matter of Dawn M. (Michael M.), 2017 NY Slip Op 05282, 3rd Dept 6-29-17

 

,

JUDGE’S INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice trial, determined the judge’s response to jury questions was inadequate and improper. The judge did not respond at all to one question. And the judge’s response was different from the response discussed with counsel:

… [I]n addition to Supreme Court’s failure to respond in the manner it had discussed with counsel, the response given did not fully or adequately answer the multiple questions asked by the jury. Indeed, the jury note requested “a clear explanation of ‘care and treatment,'” and also asked whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy? Or only the physical ‘care & tx’ given?” Importantly, the question of whether “‘care and treatment’ include[d] paperwork/documentation & policy?” was written by the jury as a stand alone question. The jury’s multiple questions clearly demonstrated that the jurors were confused as to whether, and in what manner, they were permitted to consider the alleged lack of documentation in determining whether defendant deviated from the standard of care. By failing to provide clarification on this point and by stating, matter-of-factly, that care and treatment included only the physical treatment and care given, Supreme Court precluded the jury from fairly considering a critical issue presented at trial … . Meyer v Saint Francis Hosp., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 05286, 3rd Dept 6-28-17

 

HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D.

The Third Department determined petitioner was properly found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while using a portable electronic device by the appeals board of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Petitioner was driving holding a GPS device:

​

We agree with the Appeals Board that a hand-held GPS device meets the statutory definition of a “portable electronic device” inasmuch as it is a “hand-held device with mobile data access” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d [2] [a]). In our view, it is mobile and receives data to calculate a driver’s geographical location and to communicate directions. Moreover, a review of the pertinent legislative history regarding Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d demonstrates that the Legislature intended Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d (2) (a) to encompass any portable electronic device that diverts a driver’s attention away from the road and prevents the full use of a driver’s hands … . Thus, we are satisfied that the Appeals Board’s interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d (2) (a) as encompassing a hand-held GPS device was rational … .

We also agree that there is ample support for the Appeals Board’s determination that petitioner was using the GPS device. Petitioner concedes that, while he was driving, he was holding the device in his hand and “view[ing] the GPS navigation system to read directions.” Accordingly, we find that the determination was supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Clark v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2017 NY Slip Op 05133, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D)/GPS DEVICE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW,  HOLDING A GPS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING VIOLATES VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1225-D)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact in this medical malpractice action.  Plaintiff injured her shoulder when she caught a patient (Lisa Clark) who started to fall as she was being transferred from a sideboard to a physical therapy bed. The action was deemed to sound in medical malpractice:

​

The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim is that initiating a slide board transfer of Clark with minimal to moderate assistance deviated from the applicable standard of care, thereby causing Clark’s fall and plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, an expert affidavit from a physical therapist opining that utilizing a slide board transfer with minimal assistance did not deviate from the accepted standard of care and noting, based on a review of Clark’s records, that Clark had successfully completed slide board transfers with minimal or moderate assistance on prior occasions … . Thus, “the burden shifted to plaintiff to present expert medical opinion evidence that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care” … .

In opposition, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the affidavit of an orthopedic surgeon, Matthew J. Nofziger. Even assuming that Nofziger was qualified to provide an opinion with respect to the standard of care used in the physical therapy field for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of transfer procedures … , we find his affidavit to be insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Although Nofziger criticized the assessment of Clark’s physical and cognitive abilities prior to the slide board transfer, he failed to identify or define the applicable standard of care appropriate in this case, merely asserting, in a conclusory manner, that Clark required a higher level of assistance than was provided to her … . Nor did Nofziger set forth any particular actions or procedures that could have prevented Clark from falling, thereby failing to establish the requisite nexus between the alleged malpractice and plaintiff’s injury … . Therefore, even if considered, Nofziger’s affidavit was patently insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the transfer procedure used in this case deviated from the applicable standard of care … . Webb v Albany Med. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 05146, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, LAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO-CAUSED, STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Third Department determined claimant’s negligent highway design action was properly no-caused after a non-jury trial. Claimant struck a disabled vehicle that was on the shoulder of the road. Claimant alleged the four-foot wide shoulder was too narrow. The state was entitled to qualified immunity for the highway design:

​

Defendant has a “duty to keep its roadways in a reasonably safe condition,” but “is afforded ‘a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision'” … . Qualified immunity does not attach where defendant’s “study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan,” however, and it falls on defendant to show that its actions resulted from a sufficiently deliberative process … .

Claimant cites various alleged deficiencies in the design of Route 7 relating to his assertion that the four-foot wide shoulder where the disabled vehicle was parked was too narrow. Route 7 is a four-lane freeway originally designed for traffic speeds of 70 miles per hour but, due to it being on a prolonged incline, a third “climbing lane” was added in the westbound direction to allow slow vehicles to make their way uphill without posing difficulties for other drivers. The credible proof at trial indicated that the shoulder width reflected the slower vehicles traveling in a climbing lane that was wide enough, in any case, to allow vehicles to pass a disabled vehicle on the shoulder. The record further reveals that the shoulder design was appropriate under the guidelines in place when the road was designed and built … . Inasmuch as the shoulder “that was installed met the relevant design standards in effect at the time of its construction,” the Court of Claims properly concluded that defendant cannot be held liable for that design … . Lake v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05142, 3rd Dept 6-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (HIGHWAY DESIGN, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (HIGHWAY DESIGN, IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/HIGHWAY DESIGN (IMMUNITY, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE HIGHWAY SHOULDER WAS TOO NARROW, RESULTING IN CLAIMANT’S STRIKING A DISABLED VEHICLE, PROPERLY NO CAUSED BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

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