Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After her estranged boyfriend shot her, causing serious injuries, plaintiff sued the City of New York for failing to provide her with adequate police protection to prevent the attack. The primary issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish the existence of a special relationship between plaintiff and the police. The court held that because plaintiff's proof was insufficient to establish a special relationship and demonstrate that the City owed her a special duty of care, the court agreed with the Appellate Division that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the negligence claims for failure to establish a prima facie case. View "Valdez v City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant was the driver of an automobile that struck plaintiff's decedent while she was crossing the street, causing her death. Pursuant to defendant's claim that the accident occurred while he was temporarily blinded by sun glare, the trial court instructed the jury on the emergency doctrine in his favor. The court held that, under these circumstances, it was error to give the jury the emergency instruction and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, the amended complaint reinstated as against defendant and the case remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "Lifson v. City of Syracuse" on Justia Law

These six lawsuits involved an accident near Geneseo, New York, where a charter bus carrying members of an Ontario women's hockey team plowed into the rear-end of a tractor-trailer parked on the shoulder of the highway. The charter bus's driver, his employer, and the company that leased the bus were Ontario domiciliaries (collectively, bus defendants), as were all the injured and deceased passengers. The tractor-trailer driver was a Pennsylvania domiciliary, as were his employer and the companies that hired the trailer (collectively, trailer defendants). In a certified question from the Appellate Division, the court was called upon to decide the choice-of-law issue presented by the lawsuits, which were brought to recover damages for wrongful death and/or personal injuries. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the lower courts were not foreclosed from engaging in choice-of-law analysis where CPLR 3016(e) must be read together with CPLR 4511(e). The court concluded that Ontario had weighed the interests of tortfeasors and their victims in cases of catastrophic personal injury, and had elected to safeguard its domiciliaries from large awards for non-pecuniary damages. Therefore, in lawsuits brought in New York by Ontario-domiciled plaintiffs against Ontario-domiciled defendants, the bus defendants in this case, the court held that New York courts should respect Ontario's decision, which differed from but certainly did not offend New York's public policy. The court held, however, that there was no cause to contemplate a jurisdiction other than New York with respect to the trailer defendants where the conduct causing injuries and the injuries themselves occurred in New York. The trailer defendants did not ask the Supreme Court to consider the law of their domicile, Pennsylvania, and they had no contacts whatsoever with Ontario other than the happenstance that plaintiffs and the bus defendants were domiciled there. Accordingly, the orders in these cases should be modified in accordance with this opinion. View "Edwards, et al. v. Erie Coach Lines Co., et al.; Godwin, et al. v. Trentway-Wagar, Inc., et al.; Butler v. Stagecoach Group, PLC, et al.; Cowan, et al. v. Stagecoach Group, PLC, et al.; Davidson v. Coach USA, Inc., et al.; Roach, et al. v. Coach USA, Inc" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an electrician working on a construction project site, brought a personal injury suit against defendants asserting claims under Labor Law 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common law negligence. At issue was whether defendants-property owners (property owners) were entitled to common law indemnification from defendant-general contractor (general contractor). The court held that the general contractor's demonstrated lack of actual supervision and/or direction over the work was sufficient to establish that it was not required to indemnify the property owners for bringing about plaintiff's injury. The court also held that the property owner's vicarious liability could not be passed through the general contractor, the non-negligent, vicariously liable general contractor with whom they did not contract. Therefore, the court held that, under the facts and circumstances, the property owners were not entitled to common law indemnification from the general contractor. View "McCarthy, et al. v. Turner Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the former spouse of Stephen Walsh, who was a defendant in related actions brought by plaintiffs, alleging that the property derived from Walsh's illegal securities activities went into the former spouse's possession under the parties' separation agreement and divorce decree. At issue, in certified questions to the court, was whether the former spouse had a legitimate claim to those funds, which would prevent plaintiffs from obtaining disgorgement from her. The court held that an innocent spouse who received possession of tainted property in good faith and gave fair consideration for it should prevail over the claims of the original owner or owners consistent with the state's strong public policy of ensuring finality in divorce proceedings. View "Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Walsh, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action for defamation and unfair competition by disparagement against defendants, alleging that defendants published defamatory statements about plaintiff on a website. At issue was whether plaintiff's claim against the website operator arising out of allegedly defamatory comments posted to the website was barred by the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. 230. The court held that defendants' added headings and illustrations did not materially contribute to the defamatory nature of the third-party statements and therefore, plaintiff failed to state a viable cause of action against defendants, as his claims were clearly barred by the CDA. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was affirmed. View "Shiamili v. The Real Estate Group of New York, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the father of decedent, commenced an action seeking to recover from defendants, decedent's grandparents, for decedent's wrongful death and for her conscious pain and suffering where she accidentally drowned in defendants' pool. At issue was an exclusion in defendants' homeowner's insurance policy excluding coverage for bodily injury to an insured where an insured would receive "any benefit" under the policy. The court held that judgment should have been granted in plaintiff's favor where the exclusion did not operate to bar coverage for the noninsured plaintiff's wrongful death claim for the death of the insured decedent. Accordingly, the court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cragg v. Allstate Indemnity Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against defendant after she slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot owned and maintained by defendant. The appellate court held that defendant met its burden of demonstrating that it had not received written notice and that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing either exception to the written notice requirement. The appellate court also certified to the court the question of whether its decision and order was properly made. The court agreed with the appellate court and held that defendant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to correct any defect before being required to respond to any claim of negligence with respect thereto where the parking lot owned and maintained by defendant was accessible to the general public for vehicular travel. Accordingly, the order of the appellate division was affirmed, with costs, and the certified question was not answered upon the ground that it was unnecessary.

Plaintiff and his wife brought a products liability action against defendant entities responsible for the manufacture, distribution, and package design of a product sold under the brand name Lewis Red Devil Lye ("RDL") where plaintiff was injured while using RDL to clear a clogged floor drain in the kitchen of the restaurant where he worked. At issue was whether summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendant where plaintiff's handling of the product was not in accordance with the label's instructions and warnings. The court concluded that a defendant moving for summary judgment in a defective design case must do more than state, in categorical language in an attorney's affirmation, that its product was inherently dangerous and that its dangers were well known. Therefore, the court reversed summary judgment and held that defendant failed to demonstrate that its product was reasonably safe for its intended use; that is, the utility of the product outweighed the inherent danger.