Source: https://nytortsweekly.com/december-11-2018-vol-136/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:26:27+00:00

Document:
After having once been unable to proceed with trial because of unavailability of experts, plaintiff again was unable to proceed because of unavailability of her expert witness on issue of malpractice and sought to substitute different previously undisclosed expert. Lower court providently refused to allow the substitution because plaintiff failed to show good cause for not being able to disclose prior to trial under CPLR §3101(d) and providently dismissed action for failing to proceed under 22 NYCRR §202.27. Dismissal should have been without prejudice instead of with prejudice since dismissal for failure to prosecute is not on the merits. Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr.
Comment: In a separate decision, plaintiff’s motion to vacate denied for failing to show reasonable excuse where she provided insufficient details of expert’s purported lack of availability and her conclusory claim that her attorney was engaged was insufficient where attorney made no such claim at trial. Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr. Not discussed was the option to commence a new action if the statute of limitations had not already run since the dismissal was without prejudice. While CPLR §205(a) allows a new suit within 6-months of dismissal even if statute of limitations has run, that extension doesn’t apply where dismissal was for failure to prosecute or lack of personal jurisdiction.
Comment: This is like granting a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect to a party who had not had an opportunity to fairly litigate the issue in the prior case.
Defendant established it had no affirmative duty to conduct reasonable inspections of window installation that fell on plaintiff when he closed the window, but plaintiff raised issue on res ipsa loquitor. Windows do not normally fall out absent negligence and plaintiff was not required to prove defendant “‘had sole physical access’ to the window” to establish exclusive control. Wilkins v West Harlem Group Assistance, Inc.
Property manager was statutory agent for property owner and general contractor for purposes of Labor Law §§241(6) & 200 but not §240(1) where its employees testified that they oversaw general operations in the building giving them the duty to keep the premises safe including areas of hardware upgrades that they were involved in. They were unaware of and did not control plaintiff’s internet installation work and plaintiff testified that he controlled his own work and that no one from the property manager supervised him, entitling property manager to summary judgment on Labor Law §240(1). Burgund v Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
Time Warner denied summary judgment where plaintiff tripped on sidewalk defect more than 12″ from box cover where evidence showed that it did not regularly inspect the box cover as required by 34 RCNY 2-07(b). While it was only required to maintain sidewalk 12″ from box cover, box cover was a special use of the sidewalk carrying a duty to not create a dangerous condition, even if it did not install the box cover. Defendants’ expert did not opine on whether box cover created the dangerous condition. Robles v Time Warner Cable Inc.
Plaintiff proved that worker’s employment file was relevant given disclosure that he had fractured plaintiffs’ blind and non-verbal ward while trying to stand him up and evidence of 2- employees that worker had been fired shortly after incident for failing a drug test. Defendant’s negligent destruction of the relevant employment file which did not deprive plaintiff of the ability to pursue the case required lesser sanction of negative inference rather than striking Answer. Squillacioti v Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc.
Defendants who asked police to patrol their property while they were away denied summary judgment where police officer fell while descending exterior stairs lit only by officer’s flashlight. Plaintiff’s description of substance as a slimy, moss-like or ice-like was sufficient to identify cause of his fall and was not an unknown cause as claimed by the defendants. Defendants also failed to show lack of constructive notice in that there was no dangerous condition.
Fire escape used by worker to access different elevated levels was a safety device under Labor Law §240(1) raising a question of fact in opposition to contractor’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant not entitled to summary judgment on sole cause absent proof that there was another available ladder plaintiff unreasonably chose not to use. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on §240(1) denied on issue of whether he was permitted to work at site on day of accident. Goya v Longwood Hous. Dev. Fund43282/16E Co., Inc.
Plaintiff granted summary judgment on proof that wooden structure he and coworker were erecting on roof for asbestos abatement work collapsed due to inadequate bracing. Gusty wind could not be sole proximate cause of injury since safety devices must be provided to prevent against foreseeable risks. Uvidia v Cardinal Spellman High Sch.
Malpractice claim against hospital dismissed on statute of limitations where ureteral stent/catheter plaintiff claimed was left in him in 1993 and not discovered until 2012 was a device intended to be left in the body for up to 6-months and, therefore, not a “foreign object” that would extend the statute of limitations. Livsey v Nyack Hosp.
Store failed to meet initial burden of showing that small table plaintiff-customer tripped on was open/obvious and not dangerous under the circumstances based in part on defendants’ own evidence of lighting and presence of other patrons in the area. Elfassi v Hollister Co.
Drug company’s summary judgment motion denied where it failed to show that plaintiff had been hired to fix the condition causing water to leak from manufacturing totes and there were conflicting stories about whether the floor was wet when plaintiff-security guard fell and whether the totes would be filled with water. Plaintiff similarly denied summary judgment based on conflicting stories. Reaves v Novartis Pharms. Corp.
NYCHA’s motion for summary judgment denied where care taker testified that cleaning schedule was not consistently followed and supervisor contradicted caretaker’s testimony, failing to show that NYCHA did not have constructive notice of dangerous condition. Person v New York City Hous. Auth.
Defendant-driver’s testimony that plaintiff struck his right fender right after he pulled out from a parking spot raised a question of fact in opposition to plaintiff’s version that defendants’ car went through a stop sign and failed to yield the right-of-way. Summary judgment for plaintiff denied. Kaziu v Human Care Servs. for Families & Children, Inc.
Lower court providently accepted law office failure as a reasonable excuse to vacate default because it was an isolated and unintentional incident without prejudice to defendants. Verified BP and deposition established meritorious action. Hamilton v National Amusements, Inc.
Where plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment less than 3-weeks after defendant answered, lower court providently denied motion without prejudice to permit defendant to conduct discovery. Amyotte v Armic Serv. Corp.

References: §3101
 §202
 §205
 §240
 §240
 §240
 §240