In Tutrani v. Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906 (2008), a police officer abruptly stopped his vehicle in the middle of the highway, causing a rear-end collision. Plaintiff was able to come to a complete stop behind the officer's vehicle, but was then rear-ended by the vehicle behind her. The jury found that the officer's negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. The Appellate Division reversed the jury verdict holding, as a matter of law, that the officer's conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident because the plaintiff was able to come to a complete stop without hitting the officer's vehicle. The Court of Appeals reversed stating that the jury could have ultimately found that the officer's conduct was a substantial cause of the collision.

In Worth Construction Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 N.Y.3d 411 (2008), the Court of Appeals interpreted an insurer's duty to defend and indemnify an additional insured where the insurance policy covered the additional insured only for claims arising out of the primary insured's "operations." The court determined that without an act of negligence on the part of the primary insured, there was no duty to defend and indemnity the additional insured.

In the case of Ramroop v. Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc., et al, 2008 WL 2519849, the Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether an illegal alien may recover additional compensation under Workers' Compensation Law §15(3)(v). Workers' Compensation Law §15(3)(v) allows a claimant to receive additional compensation benefits if his/her impairment of wage earnings is due solely to the compensable injury sustained and if the claimant participates in a Board approved rehabilitation program. The claimant in question was an illegal alien ineligible for work in the United States and ineligible for participation in a "Board approved rehabilitation program" because of his illegal status. Accordingly, the Court held that the claimant was not entitled to additional compensation under the Workers' Compensation Law because he could not participate in a Board approved rehabilitation program.

In the case of Evans v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 2008 WL 2713991 (4th Dept. 2008), the plaintiff commenced an action under Labor Law §241(6) to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell 20 feet from an aluminum ladder pick, extending between two ladders. The Court described the ladder pick as "a sidewalk that goes from ladder to ladder." The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to the Labor Law §241(6) claim insofar as the claim was based upon a violation of 12 NYCRR §23- 1.21, regulating the use, installation and maintenance of ladders. The court stated that because the plaintiff fell from a ladder pick and not an actual ladder, the specified regulation was inapplicable to the case at hand. The Court dismissed the Labor Law §241(6) claim.

In Galasso v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 2008 WL 2714088 (4th Dept. 2008), plaintiff sued defendant when a construction sign she was attempting to erect fell on her. The sign allegedly fell as a result of a gust of wind caused by a speeding tractor-trailer driven by defendant's employee. The Appellate Division upheld the denial of defendant's summary judgment motion stating that the tractor- trailer driver owed a duty of care to operate the vehicle in a safe manner. The Appellate Division also held that the accident was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant's speeding.

Prepared by: Kristen Degnan