Source: https://mdafny.com/lawyer/Recent-Appeals_cp12724.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:55:47+00:00

Document:
Facts: The plaintiff alleged that she was injured on a patch of ice in the employee parking lot. Pursuant to a contract, the defendant managed the parking lot, but was not responsible for snow or ice removal therein. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims, but the motion court denied the motion.
Result: The Appellate Division modified, holding that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because it did not create or exacerbate the condition, and because its contract was not comprehensive and exclusive so as to displace the owner’s duty to keep the premises in a safe condition. The Court also dismissed cross-claims for contribution and common law indemnification. As to contribution, it held that the defendant did not owe it a duty of care outside of its contractual obligations and did not owed the plaintiff a duty of care. As to common law indemnification, it held that the defendant was neither actively at fault nor could be found liable by operation of law.
Facts: The plaintiff claimed that she was struck by the defendant’s vehicle while crossing the street at the intersection. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the motion court denied the motion with leave to renew.
Result: The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the defendant raised a triable question of fact as to how the accident occurred, whether he was negligent, and whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault by stating in his affidavit that the plaintiff was still on he sidewalk when he began the turn and had almost completed it when the plaintiff’s cart came into contact with the rear passenger side of his vehicle.
Facts: The plaintiff-pedestrian moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, arguing that she was crossing the intersection in a crosswalk with a traffic light in her favor when she was struck by the defendants’ vehicle. The motion court granted the motion.
Result: The Appellate Division reversed, holding that there was an issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative fault, which was raised through the photographs depicting damage just above the front passenger tire of the defendants’ vehicle and through the driver’s assertions that the plaintiff walked or ran into the side of his car after he had already completed his right-hand turn.
Facts: The plaintiff sought to recover for injuries he sustained while a passenger on a motorcycle owned by the defendant. After the accident, the unidentified operator fled the scene. The defendant-owner moved for summary judgment and the motion court denied the motion.
Result: The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the owner rebutted the presumption that the unidentified individual was operating the motorcycle with his permission through the affidavit and documentary evidence showing that the motorcycle had been stolen before the accident, that the owner made calls to 311, 911, and his insured when he discovery the theft, and that he had both sets of keys to the ignition, as well as the license plate in his possession.
Facts: The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action as a result of a construction site accident. The defendant-owner moved for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification cross-claim against the construction manager. The motion court denied the motion.
Result: The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the owner established its freedom from fault, that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries resulted from the performance of the work contemplated by the agreement, and that the manager’s responsibility under that agreement encompassed the plaintiff’s work.
Facts: The plaintiff had previously commenced an action sounding in assault and battery, which was dismissed as untimely. The plaintiff then commenced another action, alleging that the arrest was negligent, careless, and reckless. The defendants moved to dismiss the second complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion.
Result: The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the purported negligence cause of action arose from the same operative facts as the dismissed intentional tort claims, and was thus barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Court also observed that there is no cause of action for negligent assault in New York.
Facts: The plaintiff commenced an employment discrimination lawsuit, alleging that she was sexually harassed by a coworker while employed by the defendant-town. The facts revealed that after the plaintiff complained to her supervisor about the alleged harassment, the town investigated and it was determined as a result of a lack of corroboration and reliability that the plaintiff was not the victim of sexual harassment. After the plaintiff brought the civil lawsuit against the town, the town arranged for a second investigation, which resulted in disciplinary charges against the coworker, his transfer, and prohibition of any contact between him and the plaintiff. The town moved for summary judgment and the Supreme Court granted the motion.
Result: The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the town established its entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it did not encourage, condone, or approve the sexual harassment, and that once it was aware of the complaints, it took prompt action to investigate and remedy the situation.
Facts: The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against the operator.
Result: The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the driver established that he was driving his vehicle in a non-negligent manner when the severely intoxicated plaintiff suddenly appeared in his lane of traffic. The Court further held that the emergency situation of the plaintiff’s sudden appearance left the operator without time to sound his horn, apply the brakes, or swerv to avoid the accident.
Facts: The plaintiff alleged that he suffered injuries while unloading supplies from a truck operated by a co-defendant. Defendant-trucking company moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not the employer of the defendant-driver so as to be vicariously liable for his conduct. The Supreme Court denied the motion.
Result: The Appellate Division affirmed, in part, holding that there were questions of fact as to whether the driver was an independent contractor or an employee of the trucking company. Although the operator worked pursuant to a contract, he was required to maintain insurance in the amount dictated by the trucking company, his delivery process was controlled by the company’s dispatcher, he used the trucking company’s forms and was required to wear a company shirt, and the truck bore the company’s logo.
Facts: The plaintiff alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution. The defendants moved to dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendants.
Result: The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the record established that there was probable cause to charge the plaintiff with the offense of harassment in the second degree based on the sworn statements of his wife, which served as a complete defense to both claims.
Facts: The plaintiff commenced this negligence action after slipping and falling on ice that froze in a parking lot. The plaintiff alleged the defendant purposely dumped water in the parking lot as part of its cleaning measures, which in turn, froze and created an ice patch. During the trial, the judge precluded plaintiff from offering into evidence post-accident surveillance videos of the defendant. The jury subsequently found in favor of the defendant.
Result: The appellate court held that the trial judge properly precluded the post-accident surveillance videos because they were taken after the plaintiff’s accident and were too sparse to constitute habit evidence.
Facts: The plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice and wrongful death action alleging that the defendant failed to interpret the decedent’s echocardiograms. The defendant had reviewed to echocardiograms and noted that the decedent had severe aortic stenosis and aortic insufficiency. The defendant discussed these findings with the decedent’s cardiologist. Upon the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the action insofar as asserted against the defendant.
Result: The appellate court upheld the dismissal finding that the plaintiff’s expert failed to show how the defendant departed from the applicable standard of care and that the expert failed to differentiate the alleged acts of negligence of the defendant and the other co-defendants.
Facts: The plaintiff was a passenger riding a bus operated by the defendant during a storm. There was snow falling when the plaintiff embarked, and it continued to snow through the duration of the bus ride. As plaintiff attempted to disembark, he slipped on ice and water on the steps of the bus. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Result: The appellate court reversed and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court held that the defendant did not breach any duty to the plaintiff because it would have been unreasonable to expect the driver to continually clean the steps during a storm.
Facts: The plaintiff commenced an action against the municipal defendant seeking money damages for increased costs stemming from the municipality’s alleged delay in issuing a building permit. The municipal defendant, relying on the immunity afforded to municipalities for discretionary determinations, moved to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s failure to state a cause of action. The lower court granted the motion.
Result: The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the complaint.
Facts: The plaintiff originally commenced this personal injury action in Bronx County. The defendants subsequently moved to change venue to Suffolk County. While the venue motion was granted, the plaintiff never served a notice of appeal from the order transferring venue. After the file was transferred, the plaintiff filed a unilateral notice of discontinuance in Suffolk County and recommenced the action in Kings County. The defendants moved to vacate the notice of discontinuance. The trial court denied the motion.
Result: The appellate court reversed and held that the plaintiff could not unilaterally discontinue the Suffolk County action. It explained that the notice of discontinuance was untimely and the facts supported a finding that the plaintiff was attempting the circumvent the order transferring venue to Suffolk County.
Facts: The plaintiff, while working on top of an elevator, tripped and fell on a drop light that had become disconnected. The contractor sought contractual indemnification from a subcontractor, represented by MDAF, and also sought to add a cause of action for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The trial court denied the contractor’s motion.
Result: The appellate court upheld the denial of the contractor’s motion finding an issue of fact as to whether the contractor was responsible for providing lighting in elevator shaftway. The appellate court also held that the proposed cause of action for breach of contract patently lacked merit.
Facts: The plaintiff was injured at the defendant’s facility after carrying a chafing tray with a lit sterno canister. As she walked to dispose the tray, her clothes caught on fire from the lit sterno, thereby causing burn injuries. The facility moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff’s own actions in carrying the tray close to her body were the sole proximate cause of her injuries.
Facts: A motorist sought uninsured motorist benefits for alleged injuries sustained in a hit-and-run accident. The insurance company moved to permanently stay the arbitration of the claim because there was no physical contact between the motorist’s motorcycle and the hit-and-run vehicle. After a hearing, the referee determined that there was insufficient evidence to show physical contact, and therefore, the arbitration was permanently stayed.
Result: The appellate court upheld the hearing referee’s finding of no physical contact.
Facts: Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a patch of ice on a parking lot. The defendant had a contract with the owner of the premises for snow removal. Plaintiff sued the snow removal company for alleged personal injuries stemming from the slip and fall. The snow removal company moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary to the contract between the snow removal company and the parking lot owner, and therefore, the snow removal company owed no duty to the plaintiff.
Result: The appellate court affirmed the order granting the summary judgment motion of the snow removal company.
Facts: Plaintiff commenced this action after allegedly sustaining injuries when a medicine cabinet in a bathroom fell and hit her. The defendant moved for summary judgment and argued that it did not install the medicine cabinet.
Result: The appellate court reversed the denial of the defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint.
Facts: The plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of her deceased husband, who committed suicide following treatment with the defendants. The decedent was prescribed medication from his family physician to alleviate his anxiety. Following involuntary treatment at a medical facility, the decedent denied suicidal ideation. The decedent nonetheless committed suicide over 10 days after being discharged.
Result: The lower court denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion. The appellate court, however, reversed and dismissed the complaint.
Facts: The plaintiff allegedly suffered personal injuries after tripping and falling on a median as a result of height differential between a concrete patch and the deteriorating asphalt by the patch. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that it did not receive any prior written notice of the alleged defect as required by the written notice statutes.
Facts: Plaintiff sued the MTA after allegedly sustaining injuries while riding on a bus that jerked forward to avoid a collision with a car that suddenly cut in front of the bus. The MTA argued that under the emergency doctrine, it responded to an unexpected emergency situation and that the driver’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
Result: The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the complaint finding that the MTA was entitled to dismissal of the complaint under the emergency doctrine.
Facts: Plaintiff commenced the action alleging that the defendant committed malpractice in connection with root canal therapy. Over three years, however, passed between the plaintiff’s last visit with the defendant and the commencement of the action. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Result: The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the complaint as time-barred and found that the telephone conversation between the plaintiff and defendant, which took place less than two years prior to the commencement of the action, did not constitute continuous treatment to toll the statute of limitations.
Facts: The plaintiff commenced the action claiming that the defendant was negligent by failing to clear the sidewalk of ice and snow. The plaintiff alleged personal injuries after slipping and falling as he tried to board a bus. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that it was not responsible to maintain the area where the plaintiff fell.
Result: The appellate court affirmed the order granting the defendant’s summary judgment motion.
Facts:	Plaintiff commenced this obstetrical medical malpractice action arising from the defendants’ alleged failure to treat her diabetes following the discharge from the medical facility, to diagnose the encephalocele during her pregnancy, and in not performing a timely cesarean section. The defendants originally moved for summary judgment, which was denied and upheld on appeal. The defendants subsequently moved to preclude the plaintiff-expert’s theories as unreliable and not generally accepted in the medical community. This subsequent motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.
Result: The appellate court found that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not bar a subsequent motion in limine to preclude expert testimony as unreliable. The appellate court affirmed the order dismissing the complaint.
Facts: Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action alleging that the defendant erred by performing a surgical biopsy as opposed to a stereotactic biopsy. After trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant.
Result: The appellate court upheld the defense verdict.
Facts: Plaintiff commenced this action for alleged personal injuries against the City of New York, among others. The plaintiff moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim, which the trial court granted.
Result: The appellate court reversed and denied plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim. The appellate court found that plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for its belated actions and that the City of New York did not have knowledge of the facts constituting the claim.
Facts: Plaintiff sued the Village of Mamaroneck after she slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot owned and maintained by the Village. The defense argued that it never receiver prior written notice nor did it create the condition. The Court of Appeals held that the Village was entitled to notice and an opportunity to correct the defect.
Result: The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Facts: The plaintiff sued the defendant-dentist alleging that the dentist departed from the standard of care by placing cavit, a putty-like substance, over her tooth until a root canal could be performed. After a trial, the jury found in favor of the dentist.
Facts: Plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted on the premises of the defendant Touch-N-Go Farms, Inc. while taking equestrian lessons from defendant’s employee. Plaintiff alleged that Touch-N-Go was negligent in hiring, retaining, supervising and investigating their employee. The Court found that the defendant did not have reason to know of their employee’s alleged propensity for the conduct which caused the injury.
Result: The appellate court dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment for the appellants.
Facts: The plaintiff was hit by a motor vehicle and sustained injuries. The defendant, a food products salesman, stopped at a client supermarket and left the keys in his motor vehicle. Defendant’s passenger, who was intoxicated, waited until defendant left and drove away, ultimately mounting a sidewalk and striking plaintiff. A witness reported that the passenger continued to apply the vehicle’s accelerator pedal after the vehicle had stopped and pinned plaintiff. The trial court determined that Belt’s damages totaled $37,492, 000, including $5 million for past pain and suffering, $10 million for future pain and suffering, and $10 million for punitive damages. Defendant appealed.
Result: The appellate court found that the awards for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses were not warranted under the circumstances of the case. It also found that the award of past medical expenses was not supported by the record. In addition, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages because she neither demanded them in her pleadings nor attempted to conform the pleading to the proof.
Riley v. Battery Place Car Park, 210 Fed.Appx. 76 (2nd Cir. 2006).
In a suit arising from a slip and fall on a ramp in defendant’s parking garage, the court affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants holding that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of the offending oil patch.
Maria T. v. New York Holding Co. Associates, 52 A.D.3d 356 (1st Dept. 2008).
Plaintiff, who was sexually assaulted in her apartment by a man who followed her into her building, sued the building owner and security company for allegedly failing to provide adequate security. In reversing the order appealed from, the appellate court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants since defendants established that the sexual assault was not reasonably predictable, which the court held was needed to establish foreseeability.
Castillo v. Aubuchon Hardware, 49 A.D.3d 395 (1st Dept.2008).
Plaintiff claimed to have suffered injuries when she fell from a step ladder she was using in her home. In affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants, the appellate court found that Plaintiff had used the step stool, the product whose design was in question, for several years preceding her fall and was unable to identify anything defective or dangerous about the stool. Furthermore, an expert who examined and performed tests on the stool concluded that damage to the stool was the result and not the cause of Plaintiff’s fall.
Government Employees Insurance Company v. Young, 39 A.D.3d 751 (2nd Dept. 2007).
The appellate court affirmed the granting of GEICO’s petition to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits. Appellants, who claimed to have suffered injuries when the vehicle they were traveling in was struck in the rear, settled with the insurance company who insured the vehicle that struck their vehicle in the rear for a total sum of $50,000, representing the limits for bodily injury liability under the tortfeasor’s policy. Appellants then made a demand for arbitration under the endorsement for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits of a policy issued by GEICO to the owner of the vehicle in which the Appellants were traveling. The appellate court found that the SUM endorsement of the GEICO policy was unambiguous and held that GEICO properly offset the $50,000 Appellants from the tortfeasor’s insurer and that the tortfeasor was not underinsured.
Guachichulca v. Laszlo N. Tauber & Associates, 37 A.D.3d 760 (2nd Dept. 2007).
The appellate court reversed the order appealed from and granted insurance company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint. Insurer issued a general liability insurance policy containing an exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of insured if the injury occurred during the course of employment. Insured’s employee was injured during the course of employment and sued the general contractor of the project. The general contractor in turn brought an action against insurer seeking indemnification. The court held that exclusions in coverage were unambiguous and that the plain meaning of the exclusion was to relieve the insurer of liability when an insured was sued or indemnification was requested for damages arising out of bodily injury to an employee sustained in the course of employment.
Pazmino v Universal Distributors, LLC., 45 A.D.3d 554 (2nd Dept. 2007).
The appellate court reversed order appealed from and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Court held that defendants met their prima facie burden and the plaintiffs could only provide speculative conclusions of an injury since plaintiff had been in "several" other accidents since the doctor last examined him.
Groom v Village of Sea Cliff, 50 A.D.3d 1094 (2nd Dept.2008).
Municipal defendants were not liable for injuries sustained by a child who climbed onto a moss-covered jetty at the beach and fell. The appellate court held that the slippery condition of the jetty was open and obvious and inherent or incidental to the nature of the property and could be reasonably anticipated by those using it.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5102