Date: 06-09-2023

Case Style:

Francis Paul Quinn, Jr. et aux. v. City of New York, New York City Department of Transportation

Case Number: 1:20-cv-02666

Judge: Naomi Reice Buchwald

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: David Jeffrey Robert Skochil

Description: New York, New York personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants on governmental tort claims negligence theories.


Plaintiffs-Appellants Francis and Lori Quinn sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Transportation (collectively, the City) for injuries related to a trip-and-fall accident.

Francis Quinn alleges that in July 2019, while he was traversing a crosswalk in midtown Manhattan, his foot caught in an exposed pothole abutting a Consolidated Edison, Inc. gas cap. Francis's foot twisted and he fell, permanently injuring himself and compromising his lucrative career as a professional golfer. Francis and his wife Lori Quinn sued Con Ed, alleging that it negligently installed the gas cap and breached its statutory duty to maintain the portion of the street within twelve inches of the gas cap. The Quinns did not join the City in the action, though Francis separately served the City with a notice of claim. Following discovery and confidential mediation before a magistrate judge, the Quinns and Con Ed settled for almost $2.5 million and the district court dismissed the case in February 2020. The following month, the Quinns commenced this action against the City, seeking damages for the same trip-and-fall incident. The Quinns allege that Francis's injury was partially attributable to the City's affirmative negligence in creating and/or improperly repairing the pothole in the crosswalk.

The City moved to dismiss the complaint under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, arguing that the Quinns' previous action against Con Ed barred them from bringing this case against the City. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that judicial estoppel was appropriate because (1) the Quinns' allegations in the two actions regarding the cause of and responsibility for the accident were clearly inconsistent, (2) the Quinns' allegations against Con Ed were adopted by the court in the previous action, and (3) allowing the action against the City to proceed would unfairly advantage the Quinns. See Quinn v. City of New York, No. 20-cv-2666, 2022 WL 874852, at *3-7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2022).[1] The Quinns timely filed a notice of appeal.

Outcome: Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: