Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an on-duty New York City police officer, was injured in an automobile collision that occurred when Plaintiff’s vehicle collided with another patrol vehicle driven by Steve Tompos, another police officer responding to the same radio call. Plaintiff commenced this action against Tompos and the City of New York, asserting a N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 205-e claim predicated upon violations of N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 1104. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed, determining that Tompos did not act in “reckless disregard” for the safety of others while operating his vehicle, and therefore, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants met their burden of establishing that Tompos’s conduct did not amount to reckless disregard of a highly probable risk of harm with conscious indifference to the outcome. View "Frezzell v. City of New York" on Justia Law

George Andrucki and his wife served on the Port Authority’s World Trade Center a notice of claim for personal injury from asbestos. Andrucki later died of his injuries, and his widow became his administratrix. Mrs. Andrucki did not serve a new notice of claim but amended the existing complaint to substitute herself as plaintiff. The amended complaint continued Andrucki’s personal injury action, which became a survivorship claim, and added a claim for wrongful death. Mrs. Andrucki then filed a supplemental summons to add the Port Authority as a defendant in the lawsuit. The Port Authority moved to dismiss the claims against it, asserting that Mrs. Andrucki failed to satisfy the conditions precedent to the bringing of the action. Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss and entered a default judgment against the Port Authority. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Mrs. Andrucki should have served on the Port Authority a new notice of claim concerning the wrongful death and survivorship actions. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Andrucki’s death did not require service of a new notice of claim. View "Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sustained debilitating injuries after exiting an apartment through a window and falling off an unguarded edge of a setback roof into an air shaft. Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against Defendants, the owners and managers of the apartment building, arguing that Defendants created and maintained a dangerous condition and negligently caused his injuries by failing to install a railing around the perimeter of the air shaft. Supreme Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) the building was grandfathered out of the 1968 and 2008 New York City Building Codes and complied with earlier regulations; and (2) Defendants had no duty to mitigate the risk of an accident such as Plaintiffs’ fall because it was unforeseeable that individuals would choose to access the setback. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to whether the absence of a protective guard on the setback roof violated the building codes and whether the accident was foreseeable. View "Powers v. 31 E 31 LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Robert Davis and Michael Lang, commenced this action against Defendants, Syracuse University and James Boeheim, the University’s head basketball coach, for defamation based on statements made by Boeheim in response to Plaintiffs’ allegations of sexual molestation by the associate basketball coach. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law because they constituted nonactionable opinion rather than facts. Supreme Court agreed with Defendants and granted the motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the complaint must be deemed to sufficiently state a cause of action because there was a reasonable view of the claims upon which Plaintiffs would be entitled to recover for defamation. View "Davis v. Boeheim" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought an action against Volvo Cars of North America, alleging defective design of a product. The case proceeded to trial. At Plaintiff’s request, the trial court included a pattern jury instruction to charge the jury that was the same standard jury charge in malpractice actions. The instruction tells the jury that a defendant who has special skills in a trade or profession is required to use the same degree of skill and care that others in the same trade or profession would reasonably use in the same situation. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because this was not a malpractice case but a design defect case, the charge should not have been given, and the error required reversal and a new trial. View "Reis v. Volvo Cars of N. Am." on Justia Law

In two personal injury actions, Plaintiffs sued property owners (Defendants), alleging that they suffered numerous injuries from exposure to lead-based paint at Defendants’ properties. Prior to the defense medical examinations, Supreme Court ordered Plaintiffs to produce medical reports detailing a diagnosis of each injury alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division affirmed the order. The Court of Appeals, in each case, modified the order of the Appellate Division, holding that Supreme Court exceeded its power in requiring Plaintiffs to provide medical evidence of each alleged injury or otherwise be precluded from offering evidence of the injury at trial. View "Hamilton v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was riding her bike on a roadway that was closed to vehicular traffic for repairs. Plaintiff received permission from Donald Bowles, a supervisor with the Department of Transportation for the City of New York to enter the closed portion and was subsequently injured after falling into a depression in the road. Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the City of New York. The jury apportioned fault at forty percent to Plaintiff and sixty percent to the City, concluding that Bowles was negligent in permitting Plaintiff to enter the closed roadway. The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that Bowles was engaged in a governmental function when he closed the roadway, and therefore, the City was immune from liability. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although the City was not held liable for its failure to repair the defect in the road, the jury was not foreclosed from finding that Bowles was negligent in carrying out the proprietary function of road maintenance. View "Wittorf v. City of New York" on Justia Law

A twelve-year-old middle school student (“student”) was injured when she was struck by a car before an approaching school bus stopped to pick her up. Plaintiff, the student’s mother, filed a personal injury action individually and on behalf of her daughter against the school district (“district”). The district moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed no duty to a student not within its physical care or custody. Supreme Court denied the district’s motion, holding that the district court the student a duty of care because she was a special education student. The Appellate Division affirmed as modified, holding that the district did not owe the student a duty of care because she was a special education student, but, under the facts presented, the district owed a duty to the student based upon the actions of the district. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district did not owe a duty of reasonable care to the student under the circumstances of this case. View "Williams v. Weatherstone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff initiated litigation to recover wrongfully diverted and concealed proceeds of a loan agreement, asserting that Defendants conspired to avoid repayment by denying their ownership and control over entities used to conceal converted funds. Before the conclusion of discovery in New York, federal authorities arrested Defendants, charging them with tax evasion and alleging a conspiracy to commit fraud on the New York court by forging documents and suborning perjury. A jury convicted Defendants of tax evasion, and the district court concluded that Defendants had perpetrated fraud on Supreme Court in New York. After Defendants’ sentencing, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendants’ pleadings and for a default judgment. Supreme Court determined that Defendants had perpetrated a fraud on the court and granted the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding (1) where a court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, conduct that constitutes fraud on the court, the court may impose sanctions including striking pleadings and entering default judgment against the offending parties; and (2) with one exception, the record supported such sanctions against Defendants. View "CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment when he was struck by a sheet of plywood that fell from a building under construction. Plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries and then filed this personal injury action. Thereafter, the insurance carrier for Plaintiff's employer filed a motion to discontinue Plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits. An administrative law judge found Plaintiff had no further causally-related disability and that he had no further need for treatment. The Workers' Compensation Board Panel (Board) affirmed. Subsequently, in this negligence action, Defendants moved for an order estopping Plaintiff from relitigating the issue of causally-related disability. Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the determination of the Board was one of ultimate fact and thus did not preclude Plaintiff from litigating the issue of his ongoing disability. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants failed to establish that the issue decided in the workers' compensation proceeding was identical to that presented in this negligence action. View "Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. P'ship" on Justia Law