New York Court Applies Doctrine of Estoppel Against Inconsistent Positions and C.P.L.R. Section 105(u) to Dismiss Civil Lawsuit Against a City Contractor
Posted: July 20, 2015 Filed under: Construction, General Liability, New York Practice | Tags: CPLR 105(u), doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions, Estoppel, judicial admission, New York Courts, Summary Judgment Leave a commentPisciotti Malsch recently secured summary judgment for its client, a construction company, based upon the doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions and C.P.L.R. § 105(u).
Plaintiff, a passenger in a car, brought suit against the City of New York and its contractor due to a one-car accident allegedly caused by the contractor’s negligent work in a construction zone. Through investigation, it was discovered that Plaintiff had previously brought suit against the driver of the automobile and in a Verified Complaint, the plaintiff had alleged that “the aforesaid motor vehicle collision was caused solely by the negligence of the [driver] in the ownership, management, operation, maintenance, and/or control of the motor vehicle.” This lawsuit was settled for the full policy limits ($25,000). Read the rest of this entry »
Table Saw Manufacturer’s Failure to Include Automatic Guard is Not a Design Defect Under New York Law
Posted: July 10, 2015 Filed under: Appeals, New York Practice, Product Liability | Tags: Alternative Design, Automatic Safety, Blade Guard, Interlock, Product Liability, Risk Utility Analysis, Table Saw Leave a commentOn July 8, 2015, New York’s Second Department held that a design defect claim cannot be based upon a table saw manufacturer’s failure to include an automatic guard.
In Chavez v. Delta International Machinery Corp., 2014-05235, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5769 (N.Y. App. Div. [2d Dep’t] July 8, 2015), the trial court denied the branch of the defendant’s motion for summary that sought to dismiss all claims based upon allegations that a table saw was defective for not including an automatic safety device – an interlock device that would prevent the saw from operating unless the blade guard was properly in place. Read the rest of this entry »
Two Recent Decisions From New York’s First Department Regarding Premises Liability
Posted: April 16, 2015 Filed under: General Liability, New York Practice | Tags: First Department, Negligence, New York City Building Code, New York Practice, Premises Liability, Sole Proximate Cause Leave a commentToday, two decisions were issued from the First Department pertaining to premises liability. The first decision concerns the “sole proximate cause” defense and the second decision reiterates the notion that an owner of premises will not be insulated from liability merely because it complies with the building codes.
Read the rest of this entry »
Redacting Confidential Personal Information From Court Filings is Now Mandatory in New York
Posted: March 28, 2015 Filed under: General Liability, New York Practice | Tags: Civil Procedure, Confidential Personal Information, New York Practice, New York Trial Courts, Redacting, Rule 202.5(e) Leave a commentAs of March 1, 2015, parties to litigation in New York Courts are required to redact confidential personal information (“CPI”) on any documents filed in the Supreme and County Courts. Given the number of deposition transcripts and Bills of Particulars that I have seen submitted without redacting personal information (such as social security number, taxpayer identification number, or birth date), it appears that many practicing attorneys have not received the memo.
To paraphrase the New Age Outlaws, “Oh you didn’t know, well then you better call somebody!”
The Reach of the Communications Decency Act’s “Good Samaritan” Clause
Posted: March 27, 2015 Filed under: Commercial Litigation, Firearms Defense | Tags: Communications Decency Act, District of New Jersey, Federal Court, Good Samaritan Clause, Judge Simandle, Muzzleloader, Second Circuit Leave a commentTwo recent local cases, one from the Second Circuit and one from the District of New Jersey, serve as reminders regarding the reach of the “Good Samaritan” clause of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) and demonstrate that the CDA is a powerful defense against tort claims brought against operators of websites. Read the rest of this entry »
