Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, administrator of decedent's estate, brought this negligence and wrongful death action against defendant. At issue was whether the trial court, in awarding preverdict interest, properly discounted wrongful death damages back to the date of decedent's death and awarded interest from the date of death to the date of the verdict. Applying the EPTL 5-4.3 and its predecessor statutes, the court held that prejudgment interest in a wrongful death action was part of the damages and that such interest should run from the date of death to the date of the verdict. Furthermore, it has long been a rule in New York that the damages on a wrongful death action were due on the date of the death of the plaintiff's decedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Toledo v Christo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendants after he was injured while engaging in demolition work at an apartment building owned by defendant. Plaintiff claimed violations of Labor Law 200, 240(1), and 241. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his section 240(1) cause of action and the denial of his cross-motion on that claim. The court concluded that it could not say as a matter of law that equipment of the kind enumerated in section 240(1) was not necessary to guard plaintiff from the risk of falling from the top of the dumpster. Consequently, defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment. The court agreed, however, that plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was properly denied because genuine issues of fact remained. View "Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Exum, an employer of Elrac, served a notice of intention to arbitrate on Elrac, seeking uninsured motorist benefits. Elrace petitioned to stay the arbitration. Supreme Court granted the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, permitting the arbitration to proceed. The court affirmed and held that a self-insured employer whose employee was involved in an automobile accident could not be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. View "Matter of Elrac, Inc. v Exum" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought lawsuits for personal injuries allegedly resulting from automobile accidents. Here, the court confronted three cases in which the Appellate Division rejected allegations of serious injury as a matter of law. The court concluded that it must reverse Perl v Meher and Adler v Bayer because the evidence of serious injury plaintiffs have put forward was legally sufficient. The court, however, affirmed Travis v Batchi where the court could not tell from the record what Travis's alleged permanent impairment was. View "Perl v Meher; Adler v Bayer; Travis v. Batchi" on Justia Law

Claimant and his wife (collectively, claimants) filed a claim for damages, alleging that the State negligently failed to maintain Colgate Lake and Colgate Lake Dam in a reasonably safe condition. Claimants theorized that the State was liable for claimant's injuries because the water level at Colgate Lake was prone to drop due to leaks in the dam and the State took no steps to warn visitors who swam and dived into the lake about the danger of lowered water levels caused by the leak. The Appellate Division agreed with the Court of Claims that the sole legal cause of claimant's injuries was his own reckless conduct in diving into the water, which he knew or should have known was too shallow for diving. The court agreed and affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. View "Tkeshelashvili v State" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice suit against defendants for injuries allegedly sustained by Mrs. Cadichon during surgery in July 2002. At issue on appeal was the May 3, 2007 stipulation. The court subsequently concluded that it was apparent from the record that neither plaintiffs nor defendants acted with expediency in moving the case forward. Where, as here, the case proceeded to the point where it was subject to dismissal, it should be the trial court, with notice to the parties, that should make the decision concerning the fate of the case, not the clerk's office. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, was reversed and plaintiffs' complaint reinstated. View "Cadichon v Facelle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against 96 Rockaway, LLC, Novalex Contracting Corp., and T-Construction Co., Inc., alleging among other things, violations of Labor Law 240(a) and 241(6). Discovery and a third-party action ensued. T-Construction moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the complaint, and all cross-claims against it. 96 Rockaway and Novalex cross-moved for identical relief. Supreme Court granted defendants' motions, and dismissed plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The Appellate Division reversed so much of Supreme Court's order as granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims, denied the motions, and reinstated those claims. The court held that, given that Labor Law 240(1) should be construed with a common sense approach to the realities of the workplace at issue, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing that claim. Plaintiff's Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i), failed for similar reasons. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed. View "Salazar v Novalex Contr. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the County alleging that the County was negligent for failing to exercise due care to prevent an unsafe condition, to wit, improperly stacked and stored bales at the recycling center. Plaintiff also claimed that the County was negligent in allowing a defective baler to be used at the recycling center, resulting in improperly wound bales that contributed to the accident. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that, like an out-of-possession landlord, it had relinquished all control over the maintenance and operations of the recycling center to Metro Waste pursuant to an agreement and was not contractually obligated to repair unsafe conditions on the premises. At issue was whether the courts erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the County relinquished control over the recycling center. The court held that an issue of fact existed as to whether and to what extent the County exercised control over the subject property. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and the County's motion for summary judgment denied. View "Gronski v County of Monroe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant alleging violations of Labor Law 240(1) and Labor Law 241(6), the latter pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c) after plaintiff was injured while working on a demolition project on premises owned by defendant. At issue was whether the court's decision in Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co. precluded recovery under labor Law 240(1) where a worker sustained an injury caused by a falling object whose base stood at the same level as the worker. The court held that such a circumstance did not categorically bar the worker from recovery under section 240(1). The court held that, however, in this case, an issue of fact existed as to whether plaintiff's injury resulted from the lack of a statutorily prescribed protective device. View "Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp." on Justia Law

In these personal injury actions arising from a single-vehicle bus accident, two questions were presented for the court's review. First, whether plaintiffs' seatbelt claims, seeking to hold defendant liable for failure to install passenger seatbelts on the bus, were preempted by federal regulations promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Second, whether plaintiffs' weight distribution claim, alleging that the negligent modification of the bus' chassis altered the weight balance, steering, and handling of the bus, was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court held that plaintiffs' seatbelt claims were not preempted by federal regulation and that plaintiffs' weight distribution claim was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. View "Doomes v. Best Tr. Corp." on Justia Law