MUST READS (4 summaries) |
|||
NOTEWORTHY | IF YOU MUST READ |
Plaintiffs granted summary judgment for 18-year-old’s murder at Howard Johnson hotel where hotel failed to provide minimal security on proof assault was foreseeable based on prior criminal incidents including gunpoint robbery, assault with clothing iron, masked individual attempting to gain entry, large parties with unruly and intoxicated guests, thefts, prostitution, drug use and sales, and logbook entry reciting that cops took weapons from kids stating that hotel should stop renting to kids, and that it was “just another night at the HOJO!” Defendant did not object to admission of logbook entries as hearsay. Hotel principal testified contracted security did not show up and they do not try to get substitute security. Plaintiff did not have to prove freedom from comparative fault for summary judgment. Davis v Commack Hotel, LLC |
NYCTA denied summary judgment where issues of whether it breached common carrier duty to provide safe place to board bus by stopping 7′-8′ from bus stop with pothole in path of passengers boarding bus. Fact that 10 passengers boarded bus without incident did not entitle NYCTA to summary judgment. Defay v City of New York |
Plaintiff’s motion to amend Complaint to include MTA Bus Co. as party after statute of limitations expired denied as relation-back doctrine does not apply between MTA Bus Co., which is a subsidiary of MTA, and MTA. Watkins-Bey v MTA Bus Co. |
While advocate-witness rule generally precludes an attorney expected to be a witness from acting as attorney, where the attorney is a litigant and there would be substantial hardship to the estate in removing the attorney, the rule does not bar attorney from representing estate. Attorney-son of decedent and distributee was unable to obtain independent counsel and removing him from representing estate would create a substantial hardship to the estate. Greenberg v Grace Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr. |
NOTEWORTHY (6 summaries) |
|||
MUST READS | IF YOU MUST READ |
Plaintiff’s motion to amend Notice of Claim to add claims that plaintiff’s foot got caught in a hole/gap and that stairs were negligently designed and installed denied. ‘A Notice of Claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability.’ The proposed amendment would substantively change the theory of liability. Ryabchenko v New York City Tr. Auth. |
Defendant did not make out prima facie entitlement to summary judgment where its president and supervisor did not have personal knowledge to establish that it did not create or exacerbate the condition by its snow removal efforts 2-days before plaintiff slipped on black ice in parking lot, or what the condition was after the work was done. Logbook entries were too general where they did not refer to the accident site and supervisor did not know if he inspected the area after the work. Ray v Apple Sq. LLC |
Plaintiffs denied summary judgment on liability where they showed a departure from accepted medical practice by leaving a portion of surgical needle in infant’s chest during surgery but conflicting expert opinions on whether that caused plaintiff’s injuries raised issues of fact. On reargument of grant of summary judgment on claim of emotional harm from infant having to undergo second procedure to remove needle, the lower court providently found it had erred and that questions of fact existed based on conflicting expert opinions. Debose, Premeire v Lacour-Gayet |
Store granted summary judgment on employees’ testimony and surveillance video showing they did not have constructive notice of the blue liquid on the floor plaintiff slipped on. Falco-Averett v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
Defendant entitled to dismissal on workers comp exclusivity clause where workers comp Board found defendant to be plaintiff’s employer and plaintiff’s submission of paychecks by a different named company on the motion did not change the conclusive effect of the workers comp board’s finding. Samper v 352 Broadway LLC |
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment entered on failure to appear at compliance conference pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 denied where “law office failure” excuse was too general and part of a pattern willful default and neglect. Hayes v Akhter |
IF YOU MUST READ (2 summaries) |
|||
MUST READS | NOTEWORTHY |
Plaintiff raised issues of fact in opposition to defendants’ showing of entitlement to summary judgment on serious injury and on causation. The court does not give the details of the proofs. Lawrence v Scolaro |
Defendants failed to submit competent medical proof to show that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury or that her injuries were not caused by the accident. The court does not give the details of the proofs. Hernandez v Pagan Corp. |