Skip to main content

Recent Developments: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision Throwing Out Plaintiff's Car Accident Case

In a decision issued on March 25, 2015, the appeals court that covers Long Island and parts of NYC reversed a decision by a lower court that threw out a car accident case brought by an injured plaintiff.

The plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was struck in the rear by someone driving a vehicle with dealer plates for Bay Ridge Lexus. As is not unusual, the driver of the dealer car (who could be an employee or manager at Bay Ridge) apparently told the driver of the other car, no, don't call the cops; this is a dealer car; take your car to Bay Ridge, and they'll fix it. However, the plaintiff passenger was physically injured and eventually sued Bay Ridge, its related companies, and the other driver.

Because the cops were not called, and for whatever other reason, Bay Ridge had no record of the accident. The defendants then used this lack of a record on their end to make a motion to dismiss plaintiff's case. (Did they think the plaintiff was making the whole thing up?)

The defendants won before the lower court, and plaintiff's case was thrown out. But the appeals court said, no, you can't win on a motion to dismiss (called a motion for summary judgment when you argue the facts) just by pointing out holes in a plaintiff's case. Besides, witnesses in the front car saw that the car that hit them had Bay Ridge Lexus plates, and Bay Ridge admitted that it owns a car with those plates. We'll let a jury decide what happened.

The appeals court got it right. The lower court decision siding with the defendants was a bit baffling. And if you think you are injured in a car accident, you need to call the police so they can come and create an accident report. It would have avoided this entire mess.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more