From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malleret v. Fed. Express Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2012
100 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-11-29

Sophie MALLERET, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants–Respondents, HLR Service Corporation, Defendant. [And A Third–Party Action].

Gary B. Pillersdorf & Associates, P.C., New York (Andrew H. Pillersdorf of counsel), for appellant. Kaplan, Massamilo & Andrews, LLC, New York (Daniela Jampel of counsel), for respondents.



Gary B. Pillersdorf & Associates, P.C., New York (Andrew H. Pillersdorf of counsel), for appellant. Kaplan, Massamilo & Andrews, LLC, New York (Daniela Jampel of counsel), for respondents.
ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered June 14, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, granted the cross motion of defendants Federal Express Corporation and Jeremy Carter for summary judgment dismissingso much of the complaint as asserted damages resulting from injuries sustained in the March 29, 2008 accident, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion denied.

On February 8, 2008, plaintiff pedestrian sustained injuries, including head trauma, as a result of being struck by defendants' truck. Subsequently, on March 29, 2008, plaintiff was again injured when, while visiting an art gallery, she became dizzy and fell from a seven-foot-high loft to the concrete floor below. The record shows that after being struck by defendants' vehicle, but prior to the March 2008 incident, plaintiff had suffered episodes of dizziness and disorientation.

The record presents a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's conduct of ascending the loft despite having episodes of dizziness constituted a superseding cause of the ultimate injuries she sustained from the March 29, 2008 accident. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's conduct was so reckless that it necessarily constituted the sole legal cause of her ultimate injuries, breaking the chain of causation from the first accident ( see Soto v. New York City Tr. Auth., 6 N.Y.3d 487, 492, 813 N.Y.S.2d 701, 846 N.E.2d 1211 [2006];cf. Tkeshelashvili v. State of New York, 18 N.Y.3d 199, 206, 936 N.Y.S.2d 645, 960 N.E.2d 414 [2011] ).


Summaries of

Malleret v. Fed. Express Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2012
100 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Malleret v. Fed. Express Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Sophie MALLERET, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 29, 2012

Citations

100 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
957 N.Y.S.2d 10
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8226

Citing Cases

Katz v. 260 Park Ave. S. Condo. Assocs.

In opposition, plaintiff raised an issue of fact via an expert affidavit opining that a chipped segment of…

Katz v. 260 Park Ave. S. Condo. Assocs.

In opposition, plaintiff raised an issue of fact via an expert affidavit opining that a chipped segment of…