| MUST READS (1 summaries) | |||
| NOTEWORTHY | IF YOU MUST READ | ||
 Malpractice defendants’ motion for unrestricted authorizations for medical and insurance records, including mental health, drug/alcohol treatment and HIV-related records, granted only to the extent of requiring authorizations for medical records related to plaintiff’s hip surgery and claim of a lower leg incision during the surgery where defendants failed to offer expert evidence of “a particularized need for inquiry into matters not directly at issue.” Defendants also failed to show “the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality” for alcohol abuse, substance abuse, or mental health records or a “compelling need for HIV records (PHL§ 2785(2)(a)).Plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions denied as defendants made a good-faith argument for the unrestricted authorizations and reasonably delayed the depositions. Rosenberg v Wilson ✉ |
| NOTEWORTHY (10 summaries) | |||
| MUST READS | IF YOU MUST READ | ||
| Plaintiff’s motion to renew and reargue opposition to motion to dismiss by NYC and NYCTA for failure to serve a timely Notice of Claim granted as to NYC where the Notice of Claim was timely served considering the Covid tolls but denied as to NYCTA where plaintiff first served the Notice of Claim weeks after the statute of limitations expired. Melgarejo v City of New York ✉ Comment: Plaintiff slipped on a slippery substance on a train platform, landing on the tracks where his hand was partially amputated by a train. |
 Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow plaintiff’s expert to extract metadata and audit trail from their records providently denied on proof they already provided the data in 3-rounds of responsive material under the court’s supervision. Strauss v Valkenburg ✉ |
| Podiatrists who saw plaintiff with complaints of foot pain after her foot surgery by another podiatrist granted summary judgment dismissing claim they failed to diagnose her reflex symptomatic dystrophy on their expert’s opinion that they did not depart from accepted practice and any delay in diagnosis was not a cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s expert’s conclusory opinions on accepted practice and causation failed to raise an issue in opposition without detailing what injuries were caused by a delay or how they could have been lessened by an earlier diagnosis. Torres v Levy ✉ |
| Plaintiff granted default judgment and matter remitted for inquest on proof of service of verified Complaint, defendant’s default, and alleged facts that she fell due to a hazardous condition on the premises which was solely due to defendant’s negligence which were made on personal knowledge in her verification. Licurgo-Villar v Samouha ✉ |
| Warehouse where plaintiff picked up a safe for scrap metal and scrap yard where he was going to dispose of it granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim of injury when he tried to open the safe by cutting tape around the door his employee had used to secure the door as neither defendant controlled the actions of the plaintiff who was the sole cause of his accident and defendants had no duty to warn plaintiff. Ayouch v Dunkirk Realty Ltd. ✉ |
| Defendant failed to meet burden for summary judgment on claim plaintiff could not identify cause of her fall from the staircase where she testified she fell because the stairs were uneven and not level. Her testimony that she may have lost balance on the fourth step from the top or bottom did show she could not identify the cause of her fall where her expert opined all of the stairs were uneven and pitched forward, creating a walking hazard on the entire staircase. Defendant also failed to show lack of constructive notice where her proof did not show the defect was latent. Toro v McComish ✉ |
| Building owners failed to meet burden for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim for injuries when the metal door handle to an interior vestibule glass door came off as he pulled it, causing the glass to shatter and fall on him. Although the building owners did not create or have actual notice of the condition, they failed to show they performed a reasonable inspection of the door handle to establish lack of constructive notice where their witness’s testimony of an inspection weeks before the incident was vague without the date of the inspection or how the handle was inspected, he testified to a daily inspection protocol for the door but never saw anyone perform the inspections, his claim the inspections were to be done by the security guards was contradicted by the security guard, property manager, and chief engineer, and there were no records of daily cursory inspections which also failed to establish that biweekly inspections were reasonable or that the defect was latent and non-discoverable. The public’s use of the door handle rendered res ipsa loquitor inapplicable as it was not in the exclusive control of the building. Company that managed building’s common elements granted summary judgment where plaintiff was not a party to its contact and there was no evidence it met any of the Espinal exceptions. Plaintiffs’ request for spoliation sanctions denied where they field the Note of Issue without seeking to enforce their requests for the visitor log and full surveillance video and claim remainder video would contain relevant information was speculation. Doherty v 730 Fifth Upper, LLC ✉ Comment: On defendants’ motion to reargue, original decision reported in a Vol. 397 recalled and replaced with this decision. |
| NYCDOT granted summary judgment dismissing Staten Island Ferry passenger’s claim for fall when ferry suddenly jerked as it hit the dock on surveillance video showing plaintiff fell after standing and taking 1-step and no other passengers stumbled or moved, establishing there was no extraordinary and violent jerk different than commonly experienced jerks and jolts. Intelli v New York City Dept. of Transp. ✉ |
| Abutting landowner granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim for trip and fall on sidewalk defect on proof the defect was trivial where it was physically insignificant, on a sunny day, with nothing obstructing plaintiff’s view of the defect. Campbell-Ramdin v Town of Hempstead ✉ |
| In multi-vehicle collision caused by a driver attempting a U-turn into oncoming traffic from a parkway entrance ramp, owner and driver of one vehicle granted summary judgment on proof it was presented with an emergency not of their own creation and had only seconds to react. Driver and owner of another vehicle granted summary judgment on proof their car did not collide with any other vehicle. Bernot v Reid ✉ |
| IF YOU MUST READ (0 summaries) | |||
| MUST READS | NOTEWORTHY | ||