Category Archives: Personal Injury

Court Decides If Marine Division Failed To Properly Exercise Special Duty to Boater

Frank Marino commenced an action to recover damages from the City of New York and the Fire Department for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he came in contact with the propeller of a boat’s outboard motor while he was being rescued from the waters of Jamaica Bay by members of the FDNY’s Marine Division. The complaint alleged that, among other things, the City and  the FDNY were negligent in permitting Marino to drift toward the boat’s outboard motor after throwing him a rope.

The City and the FDNY moved for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence. Marino opposed the motion and cross-moved for leave to amend the complaint.  Supreme Court granted the motion and denied the cross-motion. Marino appealed.

Was Officer’s Conduct Objectively Reasonable Under the Circumstances?

Debra Pleva sued the County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Police Department to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained during an altercation with police officers employed by the County and the Department. The incident occurred while the police officers were attempting to arrest Pleva’s boyfriend. The County and SCPD moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligence, assault, and battery. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the motion. The County and SCPD appealed.

Did Owner Conceal– or Rider Assume—the Horseback Riding  Risk?

Jesse Stanhope sued  Alexander Conway on theories of negligence and strict liability seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when he was “bucked” off a horse  named “Blaze” and owned by Conway.

Following joinder of issue and discovery, Conway moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint contending that Stanhope assumed the risks inherit in horseback riding. Stanhope opposed the motion. And Supreme Court denied the motion, finding outstanding questions of fact regarding whether the specific horse posed risks that were above and beyond those known by Stanhope.

Were Complaints to USTA Director Defamatory or Privileged?

A mother believed her son was bullied and harassed by another participant at junior tennis lessons, training and events. And so e-mailed to the sports’ governing body. s a recent case illustrates, the Court was called upon to determine if that communication was defamatory or privileged.

Melani Weitz reported, via email, to a United States Tennis Association official, that her son was being bullied by Matthew Porges at USTA junior tennis tournaments and at other tennis programs and events. The bullying ranged from offensive name-calling to physically menacing behavior, and it caused Weitz to fear for her son’s safety. Weitz “[couldn’t] understand,” she wrote, “how a child like [Porges was] allowed to continue to compete or even be associated with the USTA.” The email also noted that Porges had been “kicked out” of two tennis facilities and instruction programs on Long Island. Litigation ensued.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Did Conduct Alleged Support a Claim For Punitive Damages?

Frank A. Nazzarro commenced an action for alleged personal injuries sustained after Anthony Salvatore backed his dump truck into him while at a gas station. Nazzarro then moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages due to Salvatore’s “dangerous, reckless and careless manner” in operating the dump truck and his “conscious, wanton disregard for [Nazzarro’s] safety” and the safety of others. Supreme Court granted the motion. Salvatore appealed.

The Court affirmed– finding that Salvatore’s assertion that his conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible misconduct so as to warrant punitive damages was without merit. The record disclosed that Salvatore was verbally arguing with Nazzarro and his friend. The friend’s vehicle was blocking a pump. According to the friend, he planned on moving his vehicle after putting items away but Salvatore wanted it done immediately. The friend testified at his deposition that Salvatore said, “if you’re not going to move it[,] I’m going to move it for you.”

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Did Conduct Alleged Support a Claim For Punitive Damages?

Frank A. Nazzarro commenced an action for alleged personal injuries sustained after Anthony Salvatore backed his dump truck into him while at a gas station. Nazzarro then moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages due to Salvatore’s “dangerous, reckless and careless manner” in operating the dump truck and his “conscious, wanton disregard for [Nazzarro’s] safety” and the safety of others. Supreme Court granted the motion. Salvatore appealed.

The Court affirmed– finding that Salvatore’s assertion that his conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible misconduct so as to warrant punitive damages was without merit. The record disclosed that Salvatore was verbally arguing with Nazzarro and his friend. The friend’s vehicle was blocking a pump. According to the friend, he planned on moving his vehicle after putting items away but Salvatore wanted it done immediately. The friend testified at his deposition that Salvatore said, “if you’re not going to move it[,] I’m going to move it for you.”