You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.

The Third Department affirmed the denial of the hotel defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was severely injured and her husband was killed when the snowmobile they were using was struck by a car. The hotel promoted snowmobile tours. All the arrangements for the tour were made by the plaintiffs and hotel personnel. The actual tour was conducted by Adirondack Snowmobile Rental (ASR). The tour guide, driving the lead snowmobile, crossed a road without waiting for plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent, who were following. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent were struck by a car when they attempted to cross the road. The Third Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action in negligence against the hotel defendants, alleging the hotel defendants were vicariously liable for the negligence of ASR under an apparent agency theory:

 

… “[I]t is fundamental to the principal/agent relationship that [a principal] is liable to a third person for the wrongful or negligent acts . . . of its agent when made within the general or apparent scope of the agent’s authority” … . To establish a negligence claim based upon an apparent agency theory, a plaintiff must show evidence of “words or conduct of the principal . . . communicated to a third party, which give rise to a reasonable belief and appearance that the agent possesses authority to [act on the principal’s behalf]” … .

Here, the evidence includes a screenshot of the resort’s website that can be read to suggest that snowmobiling is a service provided by defendants’ agents or employees, as it is listed among the winter activities available on the premises. … [P]laintiff stated that she and decedent only dealt with the resort staff in organizing the tour and had never heard of ASR prior to the tour’s commencement. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we find that Supreme Court properly denied the portion of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s negligence claim based upon the doctrine of apparent agency. In our view, defendants’ promotional materials, together with the testimony regarding the overall experience that defendants and their staff strive to provide for guests of the resort, create a question of fact as to whether plaintiff could have reasonably believed that ASR possessed the authority to conduct the snowmobile tour as defendants’ agent … . Taylor v The Point at Saranac Lake, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00247, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

NEGLGENCE (TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, AND INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY EXPLAINED)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS EXPLAINED)/INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

STACKED SCAFFOLDING FRAMES WHICH TOPPLED ONTO PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ELEVATION RISK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED; LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON CODE PROVISION REQUIRING SAFE, STABLE STORAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS, PROPERLY SURVIVED.

Scaffolding frames had been stacked vertically against a column on ground level. Plaintiff, Hebbard, was injured when he attempted to move a frame and other frames toppled onto him. The Third Department determined the accident was not the result of an “elevation risk” and therefore would not support a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. However the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action was supported by an industrial code provision requiring safe, stable storage of building materials:

 

Here, Hebbard was six feet tall. The frames were about the same height as Hebbard and they were located on the same level as him. He was engaged in moving them from one place on the garage floor to another place on the same floor and did so by carrying one at a time. As he picked up one frame, other frames also located on the same level tipped over. Under the circumstances and in light of recent precedent, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed.

… Elements of a viable Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action include “the violation of a regulation setting forth a specific standard of conduct applicable to the working conditions which existed at the time of the injury and that the violation was the proximate cause of the injury” … . “The Industrial Code should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” … .

The relevant regulation provides: “All building materials shall be stored in a safe and orderly manner. Material piles shall be stable under all conditions and so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” (12 NYCRR 23-2.1 [a] [1]). Hebbard v United Health Servs. Hosps., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00248, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

LABOR LAW (STACKED FRAMES WHICH FELL OVER NOT AN ELEVATION RISK)/LABOR LAW (STACKED FRAMES WHICH FELL OVER SUPPORTED LABOR LAW 246 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

PETITIONERS, WHO HELD CATERED EVENTS, INCLUDING WEDDINGS, AT THEIR FARM, COMMITTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE WHEN THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS’ SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT THE FARM.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) properly found petitioners (the Giffords) discriminated against respondents (the McCarthys) by refusing to hold the McCarthys’ same-sex marriage at the Giffords’ farm (Liberty Ridge). The Giffords held catered events on their farm, including weddings. The Third Department held the farm was “a place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law (Executive law 290 [3]) and was therefore subject to the statutory prohibition of “unlawful discriminatory practice[s]” in “a place of public accommodation.” The federal and state constitutional arguments raised by the owners of the farm  (free exercise of religion, free speech, compelled speech and expressive association) were discussed in detail and rejected. SDHR’s award of $1500 each to the respondents, and the imposition of a $10,000 civil penalty on the Giffords was upheld. With respect to the definition of “a place of public accommodation,” the court explained:

Executive Law § 292 (9) “defines ‘place of public accommodation, resort or amusement’ inclusively and illustratively, not specifically, and sets forth an extensive list of examples of places within the statute” … . Such term includes “establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind” and “any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises” (Executive Law § 292 [9]). Over the years, the statutory definition has been expanded repeatedly, “provid[ing] a clear indication that the Legislature used the phrase place of public accommodation ‘in the broad sense of providing conveniences and services to the public’ and that it intended that the definition of place of accommodation should be interpreted liberally” … .

Here, Liberty Ridge’s wedding facilities fall comfortably within the broad definition of “place of public accommodation.” It is undisputed that petitioners open Liberty Ridge to the public as a venue for wedding ceremonies and receptions and offer several wedding-related event services in connection therewith. Indeed, the only wedding-related service that Liberty Ridge does not provide is an officiant for the wedding ceremony. The couples who contract to wed at Liberty Ridge’s facilities are members of the general public who, like the McCarthys, may be attracted to the farm by its broadly disseminated advertisements and website. The fact that the wedding ceremonies occur on private property and pursuant to a written contract does not, as petitioners contend, remove Liberty Ridge’s facilities from the reach of the Human Rights Law; the critical factor is that the facilities are made available to the public at large… . Matter of Gifford v McCarthy, 2016 NY Slip Op 00230, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

LABOR LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORTED BY NON-DEFECTIVE A-FRAME LADDER WHICH FELL OVER WITH PLAINTIFF HOLDING ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY)

, ,

TRADE SECRET EXEMPTION DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF DISCLOSURE WOULD RESULT IN COMPETITIVE INJURY.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rose, determined the exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for trade secrets did not require a showing that disclosure of the trade secrets would result in substantial competitive injury. Rather, the statute, Public Officers Law 87 (2) (d), provides two distinct exemptions from disclosure: one for bona fide trade secrets and one for documents which, if disclosed, would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the owner of the documents. Supreme Court’s finding that the exemption for trade secrets did not require proof of injury to competitive position was upheld. There are strict criteria in place for determining whether information constitutes a bona fide trade secret. Applying those criteria, Supreme Court properly determined that several documents provided by petitioner (Verizon) to the Department of Public Service were exempt from FOIL disclosure as bona fide trade secrets:

 

As pertinent here, Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d) protects from FOIL disclosure “all records” that “are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise or derived from information obtained from a commercial enterprise and which if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the subject enterprise.” Respondents argue that this language unambiguously indicates that the Legislature intended to create a single FOIL exemption for all types of confidential commercial information imparted to an agency — including trade secrets — and to subject all such information to the same showing of substantial competitive injury. * * *

Our courts have long recognized “[t]he importance of trade secret protection and the resultant public benefit” … , and have developed a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether specific commercial information is a bona fide trade secret worthy of such protection. First, it must be established that the information in question is a “‘formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives [one] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it'” … . Second, if the information fits this general definition, then an additional factual determination must be made

“concerning whether the alleged trade secret is truly secret by considering: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the business; (3) the extent of measures taken by the business to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the business and its competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the business in developing the information; [and] (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others” … .

Inasmuch as an entity seeking to establish the existence of a bona fide trade secret must make a sufficient showing with respect to each of these factors, we agree with Supreme Court that it is wholly unnecessary and overly burdensome to require the entity to then make a separate showing that FOIL disclosure of the trade secret would cause substantial injury to its competitive position.  Matter of Verizon N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commn.2016 NY Slip Op 00239, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (REFUSAL TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (REFUSAL TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ON PETITIONERS’ PROPERTY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS’ RIGHTS TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, FREE SPEECH OR EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION)/SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (REFUSAL TO ALLOW VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)/PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)

,

WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, COUNTY COURT’S ERROR IN ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL.

The Third Department determined it was reversible error to allow a police officer’s testimony identifying defendant as a person depicted in surveillance video from a store about an hour before the robbery of which defendant was convicted. Defendant claimed he was shopping in the store at the time of the robbery. The evidence of defendant’s participation in the robbery was not overwhelming. The trial judge had ruled the video could be introduced in evidence but no testimony identifying the defendant as a person depicted in the video could be offered. At trial, however, over objection, Cornell, a police officer, was permitted to identify the defendant in the video:

 

… [E]arlier in the proceedings County Court had ruled that, to the extent that the People were going to offer such surveillance footage into evidence, they were precluded from offering testimony identifying defendant in such footage. Cornell then testified on direct examination that he obtained the video surveillance footage from the store where defendant had claimed to have been shopping at the time of the robbery and described a group of five people that entered at approximately 6:20 p.m. and left at approximately 6:45 p.m., approximately one hour before the robbery. Upon the People’s question, “And the group being [defendant], three women and a toddler,” Cornell answered, “That’s correct.” Defendant objected to the question and the answer, which was overruled by County Court. Inasmuch as this testimony violated County Court’s prior ruling because it identified defendant as being the individual in the video who was accompanied by three women and a toddler, it should have been precluded.

Based upon the record before us, County Court’s evidentiary error in permitting Cornell’s identification testimony of defendant in the surveillance video cannot be deemed harmless. Specifically, under the particular factual circumstances of this case, the evidence of defendant’s guilt, although legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, was not overwhelming given the lack of direct evidence linking defendant to the crime and the conflicting witness testimony regarding defendant’s presence at the crime scene … . People v Myrick, 2016 NY Slip Op 00217, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/EVIDENCE (WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

STATUTORY DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE DEVIATION ALLOWED CHURCHES TO DEVIATE FROM THE TERMS OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS TO SEEK A LARGER RETURN ON INVESTMENTS.

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined petitioners, three churches which were beneficiaries of charitable trusts, were entitled to equitable deviation from the terms of the trusts. The trusts required the assets be held in insured bank accounts. Because bank accounts have generated low interest for many years, the churches sought to deviate from the terms of the trusts and make investments in accordance with the Prudent Investor Act (EPTL 11-2.3):

 

EPTL 8-1.1 (c) embodies “New York’s statutory articulation of cy pres and equitable deviation” … . Equitable deviation involves altering or amending an administrative provision, whereas cy pres effects a substantive change … . Thus, equitable deviation may be appropriate where cy pres is not because an administrative change can be made without altering the purpose of the trust or changing its disposition provisions … . Some cases addressing common-law equitable deviation required an unforeseen change in circumstances … , whereas the statutory provision applicable to charitable trusts does not require the change to be unforeseen … . The statute provides that “whenever it appears to [Surrogate’s Court] that circumstances have so changed since the execution of an instrument making a disposition for religious . . . purposes as to render impracticable or impossible a literal compliance with the terms of such disposition, the court may, on application . . . make an order or decree directing that such disposition be administered and applied in such a manner as in the judgment of the court will most effectively accomplish its general purposes, free from any specific restriction, limitation or direction contained therein” … . Matter of Chamberlin, 2016 NY Slip Op 00087, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (EQUITABLE DEVIATION ALLOWED CHURCHES TO SEEK A LARGER RETURN ON INVESTMENTS FROM CHARITABLE TRUSTS)/CHARITABLE TRUSTS (EQUITABLE DEVIATION ALLOWED CHURCHES TO SEEK A LARGER RETURN ON INVESTMENTS)/EQUITABLE DEVIATION (DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE DEVIATION ALLOWED CHURCHES TO SEEK A LARGER RETURN ON INVESTMENTS)

,

SUIT ALLEGING TOWN AND COUNTY NEGLIGENTLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR A FESTIVAL WITHOUT MAKING SURE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WERE ADEQUATE DISMISSED ON GOVERNMENTAL-IMMUNITY GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town’s and county’s motions for summary judgment should have been granted on governmental-immunity grounds. Plaintiff’s daughter, Bynum, ingested a harmful substance at a music festival. Plaintiff sued the town and county alleging they negligently issued the permits for the festival without making sure there were adequate emergency medical services to accommodate the crowd. The Third Department held the town and county were immune from suit because the issuance of permits is a governmental function and plaintiff did not demonstrate a special relationship between Bynum and the town or county:

 

Where, as here, a municipality engages in a quintessential governmental function such as the issuance of permits, even if it does so negligently, the municipality is immune from liability unless it owed “a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . As relevant here, to prove a special duty to Bynum, plaintiff must establish “[t]he elements of a special relationship includ[ing] . . . direct contact between the municipality’s agents and [Bynum], and [Bynum’s] justifiable reliance . . . on the municipality’s affirmative promise to act” … .

Viewing the pleadings and submissions in the light most favorable to plaintiff and providing her with every favorable inference … , we must agree with defendants that plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars are devoid of factual allegations that Bynum had any direct contact with defendants, or that she relied upon any affirmative promise that defendants’ agents would keep her safe while she attended [the festival]. Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00091, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT-CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND WHETHER THERE WAS AN INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CRITERIA FOR BOTH EXPLAINED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-contractor’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Defendant contracted with the NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) to do roadwork. Plaintiff alleged the roadwork caused the car in which he was a passenger to go airborne. The Third Department found that the alleged excessive speed attributed to the driver of the car was not unforeseeable as a matter of law. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the speed was the superseding cause of the accident. The court explained the law re: tort liability to third persons arising from contract, and an intervening, superseding cause of injury:

 

… “[A] party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care — and thus be potentially liable in tort — to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties[;] and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . “The general rule is that ‘[a] builder or contractor is justified in relying upon the plans and specifications which he [or she] has contracted to follow unless they are so apparently defective that an ordinary builder of ordinary prudence would be put upon notice that the work was dangerous and likely to cause injury'” * * *

… “[W]here the acts of a third person intervene between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury, the causal connection is not automatically severed. In such a case, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence. If the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct, it may well be a superseding act which breaks the causal nexus” … . Whether an intervening act is a superseding cause is generally a question of fact, but there are circumstances where it may be determined as a matter of law … . Dunham v Ketco, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00082, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEGLIGENCE (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)/MUNICIPAL LAW (BILL OF PARTICULARS CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)

CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING PROMOTERS OF A MUSIC FESTIVAL NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO CURTAIL THE USE OF DRUGS AT THE FESTIVAL AND NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL FACILITIES AT THE FESTIVAL PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS.

The Third Department determined plaintiff stated causes of action sounding in negligence against the promoters of a music festival, called Camp Bisco. Plaintiff’s daughter, Bynum, ingested a harmful substance at the festival. The complaint alleged defendants failed to take adequate measures to prevent the use of drugs at the festival and failed to make sure there were adequate emergency medical facilities at the festival:

 

Mass gathering permittees, such as defendants, “have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties” … . “The scope of that duty is defined according to the likelihood that such behavior will occur and endanger [attendees] based on past experience” … . Accepting as true plaintiff’s allegations that defendants knew or should have known of the widespread presence and use of illegal drugs at this annual festival, known as Camp Bisco, we find that plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action for negligence based on defendants’ alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in curtailing the use of illegal drugs on the festival grounds.

As for plaintiff’s separate cause of action for negligence based upon defendants’ alleged failure to provide adequate onsite emergency medical services, defendants, as mass gathering permittees, had a clear duty to provide such services pursuant to the State Sanitary Code (see 10 NYCRR 7-4.3 [n]; 18.3 [b]; 18.4 [a]). According to plaintiff’s allegations, defendants knew that Camp Bisco had increased in size every year and that, in 2011, over 26,000 people were in attendance. Plaintiff further asserts that, despite their apparent knowledge, defendants circumvented their duty to provide the proper level of medical services at the festival by misrepresenting to the relevant permitting authorities that the maximum attendance for the 2012 edition of Camp Bisco attended by Bynum would be just 12,000 people (see 10 NYCRR 18.4 [a] [1], [2]). Accepting plaintiff’s further statement that defendants’ provision of inadequate medical services was a proximate cause of Bynum’s injuries, we find that these allegations state a cognizable theory of negligence as well … . Bynum v Keber, 2016 NY Slip Op 00093, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST PROMOTERS OF MUSIC FESTIVAL RE: FAILURE TO CURTAIL USE OF DRUGS AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL FACILITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/MUSIC FESTIVALS (NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST PROMOTERS OF MUSIC FESTIVAL RE: FAILURE TO CURTAIL USE OF DRUGS AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL FACILITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/DRUG USE (NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST PROMOTERS OF MUSIC FESTIVAL RE: FAILURE TO CURTAIL USE OF DRUGS AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL FACILITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/MEDICAL FACILITIES (NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST PROMOTERS OF MUSIC FESTIVAL RE: FAILURE TO CURTAIL USE OF DRUGS AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL FACILITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)

, ,

PLAINTIFF COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT’S VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EXPERT.

The Third Department, overruling its own precedent, determined plaintiff, in this Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6) action, could properly be compelled to submit to an examination by defendant's vocational rehabilitation expert:

CPLR 3101 “broadly mandates full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution and defense of an action” … . “The words 'material and necessary' as used in [CPLR] 3101 must 'be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity'” … . To properly exercise such discretion, a trial court must balance the need for discovery “against any special burden to be borne by the opposing party” … . If the trial court has engaged in such balancing, its determination will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion … .

… While we previously held that there is “no statutory authority to compel the examination of an adverse party by a nonphysician vocational rehabilitation specialist” … , the Court of Appeals has since confirmed that the mandate for broad disclosure is not necessarily limited by the more specific provision of the CPLR that allows a defendant to demand that a plaintiff submit to a physical or mental examination “by a designated physician” (CPLR 3121 [a]) where his or her medical condition is at issue … . Accordingly, the circumstances of a case may allow such a demand even in the absence of express statutory authority … . We agree with the conclusion reached by the other Departments that such circumstances are not limited to those cases where a plaintiff has retained a vocational rehabilitation expert to establish damages, although, generally, such testing “might well be unduly burdensome”… .

… [Plaintiff] placed his ability to work in controversy by claiming that, as a result of his injuries, he suffered loss of future wages and reduced earning capacity and by testifying at his examination before trial that his future career opportunities were limited … . Hayes v Bette & Cring, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00090, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EXPERT)/NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EXPDERT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EXPERT)/VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EXPERT (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EXPERT)/DISCLOSURE (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION EXPERT)

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