|NOTEWORTHY||IF YOU MUST READ|
Motion to change venue from Bronx to Nassau County brought by company deemed employee of Nassau County denied where Nassau County was not a party and CPLR 504(1) requiring lawsuits against county be brought in defendant county is only for benefit of the County. Persaud v Transdev Servs., Inc.
Hospital granted summary judgment where its internal medicine and geriatrics expert opined that fall prevention procedures instituted in emergency room were within accepted practice and not cause of plaintiff’s fall. Plaintiff failed to raise issue of fact by affidavit from PhD nurse practitioner because the expert was not a doctor. Boltyansky v New York Community Hosp.
$80,000 past pain/suffering verdict upheld where chiropractor opined on herniated disc and limited ROM without specifying what device was used to measure ROM but Court did not instruct jury there had to be a measuring device creating a rational path for the verdict. $220,000 future pain/suffering verdict set aside as chiropractor’s testimony was insufficient to make threshold under permanent category. Bell v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.
NYC and firefighter’s motion and cross-motion for summary judgment against taxi defendants and plaintiff granted on proof that fire engine was responding to emergency with lights and siren on, either stopped or sufficiently slowed before entering the intersection, and was not reckless. Jobson v SM Livery, Inc.
Plaintiff’s expert’s unsworn affirmation could not be considered an affirmation but was corrected by submission of a sworn verson at oral argument. Conflicting expert opinions regarding why guidewire broke during spinal surgery, all speculative, and whether injuries from having to correct the situation were caused by a departure from accepted practice raised issues of fact. Defendants granted summary judgment on informed consent claims. Stewart v Goldstein
A defaulting defendant or one whose Answer is stricken admits all traversable allegations including basic allegations of liability but does not admit to plaintiff’s condition. The lower court erred in not allowing defendant to cross-examine plaintiff at hearing. Remitted for new inquest. Dejesus v H.E. Broadway, Inc.
Bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment denied where depositions raised issues as to plaintiff’s and defendant’s fault where bicyclist drove into car door opened by defendant. While a plaintiff does not have to show freedom from comparative fault for summary judgment, it may be decided where plaintiff raises the issue. Flores v Rubenstein
|MUST READS||IF YOU MUST READ|
NYCHH did not have actual knowledge of essential elements of claim where its records did not show on their face that infant-plaintiff’s injuries were caused by their negligence and plaintiff did not provide an expert affidavit. Plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden of showing no prejudice from 9-year delay where hospital’s records did not alert defendant to a potential claim and treating doctors’ records were destroyed by fire 10-months before application. M.M. v New York City Health & Hosp. Corp.
Defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx to Rockland County granted after hearing where judge found plaintiff’s testimony incredible and there was a lack of significant documentary evidence such as driver’s license, car registration, insurance policies, and tax returns. Morris v Greenberg
Rather than address defendant’s arguments regarding serious injury on categories other than death, plaintiffs sought to vacate prior order precluding them from claiming decedent died as a result of the accident that aggravated her sickle-cell disease listed as the cause of her death for failure to amend BP to add that claim by a certain date, and to amend the BP to include the claim. By not addressing the other categories, plaintiff waived opposition to defendant’s motion and the motion to vacate the prior order and amend the BP were denied for failure to show a reasonable excuse for the delay and the validity of the claim. The physician’s opinion plaintiff submitted was speculative where it stated only that the accident “might” have led to decedent’s death. Cherry v Longo
Plaintiff raised issue of fact in opposition to defendants’ showing that plaintiff’s lumbar injury requiring a discectomy was pre-existing and degenerative by treating doctor’s affirmation attributing traumatic cause based on plaintiff’s young age and lack of any prior complaints to lumbar spine. While 10-month gap in treatment was sufficient to eliminate “permanent” category, significant category did not require showing of permanency. Defendants granted summary judgment on neck and shoulder injuries where plaintiff did not show objective proof of injury and on 90/180-day category based on plaintiff’s testimony that he work several days in the months after the accident and that no doctor told him to refrain from working. Blake v Cadet
Building owners failed to show they were an out of possession landlord by not attaching copy of expired lease to show they did not have an obligation to clear snow/ice by contract or course of dealings (plaintiff did not allege statutory violation) where tenant became month-to-month tenant after expiration of the lease. Miske v Selvaggi
On process server’s testimony at hearing pursuant to motion to vacate default under CPLR R 5015 regarding person he served at church in evening, who he described as known to be the managing agent, found not to be proper service where he did not ask person his job and responsibilities and never testified that person identified himself as managing agent. Motion to vacate granted on improper service. Godwin v Upper Room Baptist Church
Cleaner who slipped on “test board” on his way to turn on school stage lights was not engaged in correcting the very danger that caused him to fall where his duties were general cleaning and he could not begin that job until he turned on the lights. His testimony that he felt the board go flying under his foot as he stepped on it sufficiently identified the cause of his fall. Lower court properly granted renewal based on the appellate court’s decision striking errata sheets which significantly changed the testimony. Torres v Board of Educ. of the City of New York
NYC granted summary judgment on Labor Law §241(6) on proof that industrial code provisions relied upon by plaintiff were inapplicable and on Labor Law §240(1) on proof that risk of being struck by metal road plate being removed for repaving was not elevated height risk protected by §240. NYC also granted summary judgment on Labor Law §200 and negligence where claim was to negligent means and methods of contractor’s work and NYC had only general supervisory authority. Lombardi v City of New York
NYC and DOE’s motion for summary judgment based on documentary proof that plaintiff who fell from scaffold while jack hammering a stone face was not working on the day in question, Columbus Day, denied where plaintiff adamantly testified that he was working on that day raising an issue of fact. Wikiera v City of New York
NYCHA failed to show that plaintiff could not identify cause of her fall because plaintiff could not identify the exact spot of the fall at her 50-H on a photograph taken after NYCHA had covered area with plywood where plaintiff’s daughter’s testified she saw her mother fall on a crack or gap in the sidewalk with a height differential that she was familiar with. Moiseyeva v New York City Hous. Auth.
Owner and tenant of property proved that raised flag plaintiff tripped on was not abutting their property but denied summary judgment for failing to show that flagstone on their property was not causing the raised flag on the neighboring property. Zborovskaya v STP Roosevelt, LLC
Building denied summary judgment where it failed to establish lack of constructive notice based on superintendent’s conflicting affidavit and deposition testimony of whether they followed their regular cleaning schedule on the date of the accident, necessary to rebut plaintiff’s testimony that he slipped on accumulated urine that he observed 4-hours hours earlier. Vanterpool v Crotona Terrace Apts., L.P.
Building owner granted summary judgment on proof building was not subject to administrative code §7-210 and therefore the owed no duty to plaintiff who slipped and fell on snow/ice on sidewalk. Defendant showed that they did not aggravate the condition through snow removal efforts and plaintiff failed to raise an issue in opposition. Colletti v Bauer
Cooperative and management company granted summary judgment on proof plaintiff fell from defect on the curb rather than sidewalk and defendants did not make special use of the curb. Cavaretta v Michigan Coop. Corp.
NYC granted motion for summary judgment on proof that 1-3 family exception did not apply to abutting landowner and it did not create or exacerbate depression plaintiff tripped on. Photographs and plaintiffs 50-H testimony showed hole from removed parking meter in different section of sidewalk from where plaintiff fell. Gomez v New York City
Homeowners granted summary judgment where plaintiff slipped on wet stairs while carrying ladder where his only claim was that wetness on stairs from rain 1-2 hours earlier caused him to fall as “mere wetness on a walking surface due to rain does not constitute a dangerous condition.” Defendants establish they did not have notice of a dangerous condition and that the stairs were not slippery when wet. Absence of handrail irrelevant where plaintiff using two hands to carry ladder and plaintiff’s expert’s opinions were conclusory where he did not visit the site. Edwards v Levy
Plaintiff’s motion to strike Town’s Answer or deem issue of prior written notice resolved against Town on claims it failed to notify plaintiff that it found a water main under roadway where defect plaintiff tripped on was located until deposition, about a year after superintendent found the water main by inspecting road with a metal detector, denied as its prior responses were appropriate and plaintiff failed to show that its actions were willful/contumacious. Arguments raised for the first time in reply were not considered. Lopez v Bell Sports, Inc.
Petition to serve late Notice of Claim commenced just prior to statute of limitations denied where even if NYC had actual knowledge of defect causing plaintiff’s fall, it did not have actual knowledge that someone had fallen. Failure to diligently investigate owner of property does not constitute a reasonable excuse and petitioner failed to show NYC would not be prejudiced by delay. Matter of Perez v City of New York
Hertz granted summary judgment on proof that area of garage plaintiff slipped and fell on spot of oil was common area that parking company was solely responsible for and parking company granted summary judgment on expert affidavit showing that ceiling pipe plaintiff thought might be source of oil was not leaking and that it did not have notice of the oil on garage floor. Koutsiaftis v Alliance Parking Servs., LLC
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to provide discovery under CPLR 3216 denied where plaintiff’s attorney offered only statements that he thought motion would be moot since he provided responses prior to return date on claim of law office failure but never asked if motion was being withdrawn and third-party defendants sent letter specifically stating that his responses were insufficient and motion would not be withdrawn without sufficient responses. Seaman v New York Univ.
Motorist’s motion for summary judgment denied where depositions of both parties raised issues as to whether defendant kept a proper lookout and made the turn with reasonable care. Elkholy v Dawkins
Third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss based on signed stipulation denied where substitution of attorney signed prior to stipulation raised questions of whether attorneys had authority to sign stipulation. Del Rosario v Lexington Bldg. Co., LLC
Plaintiff made out entitlement to summary judgment on his testimony that he was braking for a light when his car was rear-ended but defendant raised issue of fact in opposition as to how accident happened and whether defendant was at fault. MD Sumsurzaha v Corso
Defendant met its burden on serious injury with competent medical opinion that plaintiff had normal ROM and injuries were pre-existing and degenerative but affirmed report of physician who examined plaintiff and found 50% ROM restriction in both cervical and lumbar spines raised issue of fact. Sepe v Barravecchio
Defendants failed to make out prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on serious injury where one of their examining doctors found significant ROM and documents submitted by defendant raised issue on whether the shoulder injury was caused by accident. Rodriguez v Wilson
|IF YOU MUST READ|
Uninsured carrier’s motion to stay arbitration granted to the extent of ordering a framed issue hearing having submitted prima facie proof that car that rear-ended injured parties was insured by disclaimer letter claiming car was stolen at time of accident and raised issue of fact on validity of disclaimer. Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Santos
Plaintiff raised issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. The court does not give the details of the proofs. Walker v Miner