Source: https://nytortsweekly.com/february-19-2019-vol-146/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:38:40+00:00

Document:
Comment: This case was handed down 1-day before the Child Victims Act was signed into law which will make it viable again in 6-months. The Child Victims Act amends CPLR §208 extending the statute of limitations for specifically defined sexual abuse to the victim’s 55th birthday; adds section §214-g giving cases previously barred or dismissed on statute of limitations 1-year to start an action beginning 6 months after law became effective (2/14/19); and adds subsection (7) to §3403(a) giving a special preference. Other sections apply the extended statute of limitations including time to file a Notice of Claim against municipalities in GML §§50-e, 50-i, Court of Claims Act §10, and Education Law §3813.
Finding the lower court improvidently exercised its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to comply with discovery, the First Department noted that “warnings in prior court orders that the deposition was not to be adjourned is not notice to plaintiffs that dismissal of the complaint may result should it not go forward.” Defendants failed to show that plaintiff’s failure to go forward with deposition of 1 doctor was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith and plaintiff’s excuse that attorney was in MVA accident 2-weeks before scheduled deposition was reasonable. Michaluk v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
Whether inspection work falls within Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) is determined on a case-by-case basis. Environmental technician responsible for making sure of proper removal of asbestos was a covered worker because ‘his inspections were essential, ongoing, and more than mere observation.’ Plaintiff raised issue of fact or Labor Law §§240(1) and 200 and negligence claims on proof that defendant contractor placed milk crate under window as means of access to scaffold which was used by their own employees and plaintiff. Labor Law §200 and negligence claims were for dangerous premises condition and not means and methods of work.
Defendant granted summary judgment on Labor Law §241(6) on industrial code §23-1.7(f)(vertical passage) on proof that plaintiff could have accessed floor by using building’s stairs establishing no violation of industrial code. Channer v ABAX Inc.
Snow tubing park denied summary judgment on assumption of risk where plaintiff raised issue regarding whether unanticipated premature uncoupling of tube she was on while being towed to top of hill was an unanticipated risk not inherent in snow tubing and plaintiff’s expert raised an issue of whether tubing park design contributed to the dangerous condition caused by defendant’s employees’ actions. Jamjyan v West Mtn. Ski Club, Inc.
Defendant’s motion to set aside jury verdict as based on legally insufficient evidence and for judgment as a matter of law based on foreman’s testimony, read in evidence, that there was ice on the floor plaintiff fell on but that plaintiff fell at a different location denied where there was a rational path, including reasonable inferences, for jury to conclude ice formed on an unheated floor on a very cold day establishing that someone in the chain of construction was negligent. Lower court had granted defendant’s motion to the extent of ordering a new trial based on erroneous jury instructions. Bocanegra v Chest Realty Corp.
Property owner’s nondelegable duty under administrative code §720 and tenant’s duty arising from its special use of cellar door located on sidewalk that plaintiff tripped on precluded summary judgment for defendants where both may be liable as joint tortfeasors. Conflicting evidence of height differential at edge of cellar door frame, heavy traffic obstructing plaintiff’s view of cellar door, and photographs showing a sharp edge raised issues of fact on whether it presented a tripping hazard. Tenant not entitled to summary judgment on indemnification claim where tenant may have been negligent. LaRosa v Corner Locations, II, L.P.
NYCTA and bus driver granted summary judgment on proof that car traveling 40-50 mph crossed double yellow line while the driver was looking at his phone and struck bus which could not switch lanes because of parked cars. Plaintiff’s testimony that bus was driving 40-50 mph did not raise issue of fact since bus speed was not a factor in the accident. De La Rosa v New York City Tr. Auth.
Lower court improvidently exercised discretion in ordering plaintiff to respond to interrogatories even though prior court had denied plaintiff a protective order seeking video deposition where plaintiff now resided in India and was unable to come to New York for medical and financial reasons. Kuriakose v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.
Driver of car plaintiff was riding in granted summary judgment on serious injury based on competent medical evidence. Plaintiff’s treating doctor’s affidavit did not raise an issue of fact on ROM where it did not identify objective test to measure ROM. Owner and driver of other car subsequently granted summary judgment on serious injury under res judicata. Skuret v Yoyo Cab Corp.

References: §208
 §214
 §3403
 §10
 §3813
 §200
 §241
 §23
 §720