Liability for a fall on a public sidewalk.

Practice point:  Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality, and not the abutting landowner. However, an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a sidewalk where the landowner created the defect, caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk.

Student note:  Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner.  However, this liability shifting provision does not apply to "one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes."

Case:  Bisono v. Quinn, NY Slip Op 01230 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A plaintiff's inability to identify the cause of the fall.

Perfecting an appeal by appendix.

Practice point:  The appeal was dismissed because the appendix did not contain critical exhibits and material excerpts from transcripts of testimony. These omissions made it impossible for the Appellate Division  to render an informed decision on the merits.

Student note:  The appendix must contain those portions of the record necessary for the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent, including material excerpts from transcripts of testimony or from papers in connection with a motion.

Case:  Beizer v. Swedish, NY Slip Op 01229 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: Liability for a fall on a public sidewalk.

An appeal from a judgment entered upon a default.

Practice point:  No appeal lies from a judgment entered upon a default of the appealing party, pursuant to CPLR 5511.

Student note: The appeal from the intermediate order was dismissed because the right to appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment.

Case:  Anonymous v Nowicki, NY Slip Op 01228 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Perfecting an appeal by appendix.

CPLR 3121 and a demand for a further independent medical examinations.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed the granting of defendants' motion to direct plaintiff to appear for a further independent medical examination (IME) by a physician designated by defendants.

While CPLR 3121 does not limit the number of examinations to which a plaintiff may be subjected, a defendant seeking a further examination must demonstrate the necessity for it.  In addition, after a note of issue has been filed, as here, a defendant must demonstrate that unusual and unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue to justify an additional examination.

Student note:  The fact that defendants' examining physician was placed on a three-year suspension subsequent to his examination of plaintiff and the filing of the note of issue does not justify an additional examination by another physician. Defendants made no showing of unusual and unanticipated circumstances, as the bill of particulars was served before the IME, and there were no allegations of new or additional injuries.

Case:  Rebollo v. Nicholas Cab Corp., NY Slip Op 00978 (1st Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: An appeal from a judgment entered upon a default.

Court holiday.

Tomorrow's issue:  CPLR 3121 and a demand for a further independent medical examination.

A motion to change venue denied.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed, and denied the motion, as defendant failed to establish entitlement to a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3). Defendant failed to contact purported material witnesses to determine if they were willing to testify, the substance of their testimony, or the manner in which they will be inconvenienced if they must testify in New York County.  Instead, the motion is based solely on counsel's conclusory affirmation.

Student note:  Defendant's assertion that his insufficient showing resulted from plaintiff's failure to provide defendant with HIPAA and school authorizations permitting him to contact these witnesses is unsupported by any documentation, and defendant did not explain why he did not seek to compel such discovery prior to making the motion.

Case:  Vilches v. Guadagno, NY Slip Op 00977 (1st Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tuesday's issue: CPLR 3121 and a demand for a further independent medical examination.

Court holiday.

Tomorrow's issue:  A motion to change venue denied.

Evidence of inspection and cleaning as it relates to constructive notice.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed, and reinstated this premises liability claim. Although defendant presented evidence that it neither created nor had actual notice of the alleged condition, it failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the condition, as defendant failed to tender any evidence establishing when the accident area was inspected and cleaned prior to the accident.

Student note:  In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition.

Case:  Beri v. Chung Fat Supermarket, Inc., NY Slip Op 00837 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Friday's issue:  A motion to change venue denied.

Supplemental bills of particulars and discovery rights.

Practice point:  After plaintiff exercised the right to serve a second supplemental bill of particulars concerning continuing disabilities in the cervical spine, defendant was entitled to newly exercise all discovery rights as to such newly alleged continuing disabilities, pursuant to CPLR 3043[b].

Student note:  Defendant's discovery rights include the right to take a further deposition, pursuant to CPLR 3106, and to notice a physical examination by a designated physician, pursuant to CPLR 3121[a]. In the absence of a showing of bias or prejudice, the further physical examination need not be conducted by the physician who conducted the initial examination.

Case:  Brown v. Brink El. Corp., NY Slip Op 00815 (1st Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Evidence of inspection and cleaning as it relates to constructive notice.

Struck while crossing in the crosswalk.

Practice point:  Plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that defendant negligently failed to yield the right-of-way, and that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative fault.  In support of their motion, plaintiffs submitted the the injured plaintiff's deposition, during which she testified that she stopped at the intersection, observed traffic and the pedestrian "WALK" signal in her favor before entering the street, and crossed within the crosswalk while the pedestrian crossing signal remained in her favor. She also testified that she was more than halfway across the street, closer to the other side and still within the crosswalk, when she was struck on the right side by the defendant's vehicle as it turned left into the intersection, causing her to fall to the ground. This testimony demonstrated that the injured plaintiff entered the intersection after exercising due care. Plaintiffs submitted the defendant's deposition testimony in which he testified that he did not remember looking for pedestrians when he was stopped on before making the left turn, he did not see the injured plaintiff until he saw her on top of his vehicle's hood even though he had an unobstructed view of the roadway, and, after the impact, the injured plaintiff slid off the front of his vehicle to the ground. Although the defendant later testified that the injured plaintiff was not within the crosswalk at the time of impact, this claim was speculative in view of his admission that he did not see the injured plaintiff until the impact had already occurred.

Student note:  To prevail on summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action alleging negligence, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault, since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Once the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the movant's comparative fault.

Case:  France Herly Bien-Aime v. Clare, NY Slip Op 00713 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Supplemental bills of particulars and discovery rights.

Contriutory negligence and summary judgment on a Labor Law claiim.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of that branch of plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. While a worker's contributory negligence is not a defense to a § 240(1) claim, liability does not attach if a plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injuries.

Here, while plaintiff made out a prima facie statutory violation, defendants produced evidence that a safety harness and line were available to plaintiff; that he knew that he was required to anchor the line on the floor; and that the anchors, harness, and line would have prevented him from falling. Defendants also produced evidence that plaintiff consciously decided not to anchor the line as instructed. Defendant's submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Student note:  The statute imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites. To prevail on the cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that there was a statutory violation which was a proximate cause of the injuries.

Case:  Bascombe v. West 44th St. Hotel, LLC, NY Slip Op 00712 (2d Dept. 2015)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue:  Struck while crossing in the crosswalk.