96 A.D.3d 704
N.Y. App. Div.
2012
實thinks * Input: A 3-page PDF/OCR legal document containing part of one opinion and the beginning of another. * Goal: Convert to clean, semantic HTML following specific rules. * Target Opinion: The second case, “Liam Byrne v Emma Calogero et al.“, which has a complete caption and opinion body starting on page 1. * Note on the first case: The document starts mid-sentence in a case about administrative code and sidewalk liability. The instructions say “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” * The first case (starts on page 704) is partial. The second case (Liam Byrne) starts on page 704 with a caption and continues. However, checking page 3, there‘s a third case starting: “Cantalupo Construction Corp. v 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp.” * So, I should skip the text about sidewalk liability (the first block on page 704) and start with the case “Liam Byrne, Respondent, v Emma Calogero et al., Respondents, and Andrew J. Smith et al., Appellants.” * Case Name: LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v EMMA CALOGERO et al., Respondents, and ANDREW J. SMITH et al., Appellants. * Short Name: Byrne v. Calogero * Docket: 2011-06103 (Wait, I need to check the OCR for a docket number. I see “[Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1241(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50421(U).]” but no docket number in the immediate caption. I‘ll check the court/date.) * Court: Appellate Division, Second Department (inferred from “Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur“). Actually, it‘s New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. * Date: June 3, 2011 (This is the date of the order being appealed. Let me check the page for the decision date. Usually, it‘s at the top, but it‘s obscured/not here. I‘ll use 2011 or the specific date if provided. Wait, the order being appealed was entered June 3, 2011. The case itself doesn‘t have a clear decision date at the top of these pages. I will extract the metadata available.) * Citation: 945 NYS2d 737 (found in caption). * Short Name: Byrne v. Calogero. * Starts with case title. * Description of the action and appeal. * Ordered section. * Opinion body (facts, law, conclusion). * Signatures (Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur - wait, those are for the *previous* case). * Let‘s look at page 3: “Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.” - This belongs to the Byrne case. * Page 704: starts with Byrne case. * Page 705: continuation. * Page 706: conclusion of Byrne case, then starts Cantalupo case. * `N.Y. Admin. Code § 7-210` (Wait, this is in the first partial case, I skip it). * In the Byrne case: * `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]` -> `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]` * Cases: `Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]` * `Nsiah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d 672 [2010]` * `Filippazzo v Santiago, 277 AD2d 419 [2000]` * `Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 [1999]` * `Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]` * `Parra v Hughes, 79 AD3d 1113, 1114 [2010]` * `DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 75 AD3d 489, 490 [2010]` * `Volpe v Limoncelli, 74 AD3d 795 [2010]` * `Staton v Ilic, 69 AD3d 606 [2010]` * `Lampkin v Chan, 68 AD3d 727 [2009]` * `Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d 767, 768 [2010]` * Short name: `Byrne v. Calogero` * Citation: `945 N.Y.S.2d 737` (The OCR says 945NYS2d 737, I should format it as 945 N.Y.S.2d 737). * Court: `N.Y. App. Div.` (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York). * Date: The text says the order appealed from was June 3, 2011. There is no explicit date for this decision on the page. I‘ll omit the date or use the year from the parallel citations if consistent. Actually, usually, the date of the decision is at the very top, but here it‘s redacted or on a previous page. I‘ll use the info found. Wait, looking at page 1, the text “Dillon, J.P. ... concur” ends the *previous* case. Then Byrne starts. At the end of Byrne on page 3: “Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.” * The citation `[945 NYS2d 737]` is provided. * Skip the first paragraph (“dential purposes...“). * Skip “Moreover, the defendant‘s motion...“. * Skip “The plaintiff‘s remaining contention...“. * Skip “Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.” * Skip “[Prior Case History: ...]“. * Start with: “LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v EMMA CALOGERO et al., Respondents, and ANDREW J. SMITH et al., Appellants.” * Include the citation `[945 NYS2d 737]`. * Follow with the paragraph “In an action to recover damages...“. * Proceed through page 705. * End at page 706 before the “CANTALUPO CONSTRUCTION CORP.” case starts. * *Correction on shortName*: `Byrne v. Calogero` * *Correction on citation*: `945 N.Y.S.2d 737` * *Normalization of citations*: * `Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]` -> `Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]` * Wait, standard abbreviation for “AD3d” is “A.D.3d“. I will follow Bluebook for the cite attribute but keep source text. * `N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1129 [a]` -> `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]` * “motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 12, 2009...” * “defendant Amanda Averitt (hereinafter the Averitt vehicle).” * “defendant Theresa R. Smith and operated by Andrew (hereinafter the defendant J. Smith together the appellants)” - OCR error check: “operated by the defendant Andrew J. Smith (hereinafter together the appellants)“? * Let‘s check the screenshot for page 2: “operated by the defendant Andrew J. Smith (hereinafter together the appellants)“. OCR missed “the defendant Andrew J. Smith“. * Wait, looking at Screenshot page 2, column 1, middle: “...operated by the defendant Andrew J. Smith (hereinafter together the appellants)“. * OCR on page 2: “operated by Andrew (hereinafter the defendant J. Smith together the appellants)“. The OCR is a bit messy here. I must follow the screenshot (the visual source) for exact text. * “operated by the defendant Andrew J. Smith (hereinafter together the appellants)” is what‘s in the image. * `midpage-ps` at word boundaries. * Page 704 ends after “...asserted against them.” * Page 705 starts with “Ordered that the order...“. * Page 705 ends with “...as well as the deposition“. * Page 706 starts with “testimony of Calogero...“. * Opinion ends with “...JJ., concur.” * `10 NY3d 906` is `10 N.Y.3d 906`. * `82 AD3d 725` is `82 A.D.3d 725`. * `277 AD2d 419` is `277 A.D.2d 419`. Let‘s re-verify the text in the signature/concurrence line for Byrne: “Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.” * Page 704, after the first case ends: `LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v EMMA CALOGERO et al., Respondents, and ANDREW J. SMITH et al., Appellants. [945 NYS2d 737]` * Followed by a black bar, then the text starts. * I‘ll combine the caption into the `details` metadata section but also include it if it‘s considered “pre-opinion content“. Actually, instructions say “Skip case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“. But it also says “Include ALL content before the main opinion text“. Usually, the `details` tag handles the caption. I‘ll put the party names and the citation in the `details` and start the body with the summary paragraph. * `shortName`: `Byrne v. Calogero` * `cite`: `945 N.Y.S.2d 737` * `court`: `N.Y. App. Div.` * `date`: `2011` (based on internal references and the volume/year). Wait, the rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” The Byrne case starts on 704 and ends on 706. The Cantalupo case starts on 706 and is not complete. So Byrne is the main one. Text checking for Byrne: “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Andrew J. Smith and Theresa R. Smith appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), entered June 3, 2011, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.” Ordered section: “Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants, payable by the plaintiff, the defendant Emma Calogero, and the defendants Eric Brennan and Amanda Averitt, and the motion of the defendants Andrew J. Smith and Theresa R. Smith for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted.” Body: “The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 12, 2009, on northbound New York State Route 211 in the Town of Montgomery. On that date, the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle operated by the defendant Eric Brennan, and owned by the defendant Amanda Averitt (hereinafter the Averitt vehicle). The Averitt vehicle struck the rear of a vehicle owned by the defendant Theresa R. Smith and operated by the defendant Andrew J. Smith (hereinafter together the appellants), after the appellants’ vehicle had come to a stop in order to avoid hitting a vehicle operated by the defendant Emma Calogero, which crossed in front of the appellants’ vehicle while making a left turn from Canning Road to head southbound on New York State Route 211.” Wait, I notice the image says “operated by Andrew (hereinafter the defendant J. Smith together the appellants)“? No, looking closer at image 2: “operated by the defendant Andrew J. Smith (hereinafter together the appellants)“. The OCR was definitely wrong there. Next paragraph: “A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from behind is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle (see Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]; Nsiah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d 672 [2010]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). In this vein, drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident (see Filippazzo v Santiago, 277 AD2d 419 [2000]; Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 [1999]). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]; Parra v Hughes, 79 AD3d 1113, 1114 [2010]; DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 75 AD3d 489, 490 [2010]; Volpe v Limoncelli, 74 AD3d 795 [2010]; Staton v Ilic, 69 AD3d 606 [2010]; Lampkin v Chan, 68 AD3d 727 [2009]). A claim of a sudden stop by the leading vehicle, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence (see Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d 767, 768 [2010]).” Next paragraph starts on p 705 and ends on p 706. “In support of the appellants’ motion, they established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by relying on their deposition testimony, as well as the deposition testimony of Calogero, the plaintiff, and Brennan. The testimony of those parties demonstrated that Calogero decided to turn her vehicle left from Canning Road directly in front of the appellants’ vehicle, when the appellants’ vehicle was, at most, two car lengths away from the Calogero vehicle. Andrew J. Smith testified that, as he saw the Calogero vehicle suddenly accelerate from Canning Road in front of him, he applied his brakes and came to a full stop, avoiding all contact with the Calogero vehicle, and that, immediately thereafter, the Averitt vehicle, operated by Brennan, struck his vehicle in the rear.” Next: “In opposition, neither the plaintiff, nor Calogero, Brennan, or Averitt, raised a triable issue of fact as to any negligence on the appellants’ part. The plaintiff‘s contention, made in opposition to the appellants’ prima facie showing, was essentially that the appellants’ vehicle came to a sudden stop. As stated previously, a claim that the leading vehicle came to a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence caused by the rear-end collision (id. at 768). Moreover, Brennan admitted during his deposition that he was distracted from his observation of the appellants’ vehicle as it traveled in front of him when he observed the Calogero vehicle cross in front of the appellants’ vehicle, and that he never saw the appellants’ vehicle come to a stop. In addition, Calogero failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the appellants were comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident because their vehicle was allegedly speeding.” Final: “Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.” - `id. at 768`: `id. at 768` - `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]` -> `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]` - Rejoin hyphenated words: `triable` was `tri-able` in OCR? No, OCR shows `triable`. Wait, `appellants‘` was `appel-lants‘`. `accident` was `ac-cident`. `insufficient` was `insuf-ficient`. I will rejoin all. Example of rejoin: “accident that oc-\ncurred” -> “accident that occurred” “appel-\nlants’ vehicle” -> “appellants’ vehicle” “de-\nfendants” -> “defendants” “li-\nability” -> “liability” Page marker placement: Page 1 (704): Starts with metadata, then marker `` before content. Page 2 (705): Marker `` before “Ordered that the order...“. Page 3 (706): Marker `` inside the paragraph “In support of... deposition testimony“. Let‘s check the start of page 705. OCR: `705 Ordered that the order is reversed...` Image: The page number 705 is in the top right. The text “Ordered that the order” is the first thing. Let‘s check the start of page 706. OCR: `706 testimony of Calogero...` Image: Page number 706 top left. Text: “testimony of Calogero” is the first thing. Case info block for Byrne: - Case Name: LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v EMMA CALOGERO et al., Respondents, and ANDREW J. SMITH et al., Appellants. - Docket: 2011-06103 (Looking at N.Y. Slip Op 51119(U) which is the citation for this case online, the docket is 2011-06103. I shouldn‘t hallucinate. Does the OCR have it? No. I will omit docket.) - Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. - Date: 2011 (from [2011] parallel cites and the entry date of the order June 3, 2011). Final review of case name formatting: `LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v EMMA CALOGERO et al., Respondents, and ANDREW J. SMITH et al., Appellants.` Short name: `Byrne v. Calogero` Check citation formatting: `[945 NYS2d 737]` Metadata element `midpage-citation`: `945 N.Y.S.2d 737` One more check: The signature block “Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.” should be formatted. Wait, I see on Page 1: “Liam Byrne, Respondent, v Emma Calogero et al., Respondents, and Andrew J. Smith et al., Appellants. [945 NYS2d 737]“. This is the caption. The paragraph below it: “In an action to recover damages...” The page marker 704 should go at the very start of this content. Wait, the rule: “Only include page markers where content follows — do not add a trailing marker at the end“. My marker 704: Before “In an action...” My marker 705: Before “Ordered that the order...” My marker 706: Mid-paragraph “...deposition testimony“. Final check on Law citations: `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]` -> `Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]` The `[a]` becomes `(a)` in the cite attribute. Check Case citations again: `Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]` -> `cite=“82 A.D.3d 725“` `Nsiah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d 672 [2010]` -> `cite=“78 A.D.3d 672“` `Filippazzo v Santiago, 277 AD2d 419 [2000]` -> `cite=“277 A.D.2d 419“` `Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269 [1999]` -> `cite=“261 A.D.2d 269“` `Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]` -> `cite=“10 N.Y.3d 906” pinpoint=“908“` `Parra v Hughes, 79 AD3d 1113, 1114 [2010]` -> `cite=“79 A.D.3d 1113” pinpoint=“1114“` `DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 75 AD3d 489, 490 [2010]` -> `cite=“75 A.D.3d 489” pinpoint=“490“` `Volpe v Limoncelli, 74 AD3d 795 [2010]` -> `cite=“74 A.D.3d 795“` `Staton v Ilic, 69 AD3d 606 [2010]` -> `cite=“69 A.D.3d 606“` `Lampkin v Chan, 68 AD3d 727 [2009]` -> `cite=“68 A.D.3d 727“` `Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d 767, 768 [2010]` -> `cite=“70 A.D.3d 767” pinpoint=“768“` `id. at 768` -> `type=“id” cite=“70 A.D.3d 767” pinpoint=“768“` Wait, the rule for `id.` is “Infer case, cite, court from the immediately preceding citation.” Preceding cite is `Franco v Breceus, 70 AD3d 767, 768 [2010]`. One more check: OCR shows `[945 NYS2d 737]`. Screenshot shows `[945 NYS2d 737]`. I will include it. Re-checking OCR for “Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.” It‘s at the end of the Byrne opinion on page 706. Also, “as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.)” - Mc-Guirk is McGuirk. Orange County (McGuirk, J.) Let‘s confirm there are no footnotes. Scanning pages... no footnotes found. One detail: page 704 has a block of text at the top that belongs to a previous case. I skip it. The Byrne case starts about 2/3 down page 704. One correction on Case Name Shortening for Byrne: `LIAM BYRNE v. EMMA CALOGERO` Bluebook short name for `LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v EMMA CALOGERO et al., Respondents, and ANDREW J. SMITH et al., Appellants`: `Byrne v. Calogero`. Case Information logic check: `midpage-court` attribute: `N.Y. App. Div.` `midpage-citation`: `945 N.Y.S.2d 737` One minor OCR fix: “Volpev Limoncelli” -> “Volpe v Limoncelli“. Ready to write HTML. Wait, the rule: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” The text before Byrne is partial. The text of Byrne is complete. The text of Cantalupo is partial. So only Byrne. Double checking OCR on page 2: “operated by Andrew (hereinafter the defendant J. Smith together the appellants)“. Screenshot shows: “operated by the defendant Andrew J. Smith (hereinafter together the appellants)“. I‘ll follow the screenshot. Double checking OCR on page 3: “distracted from his observation of the appellants’ vehicle as it traveled in front of him when he observed the Calogero vehicle cross in front of the appellants’ vehicle“. Screenshot check: “...distracted from his observation of the appellants’ vehicle as it traveled in front of him when he observed the Calogero vehicle cross in front of the appellants’ vehicle...“. Correct. Final check on Concurrence line: “Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.” Wait, the names “Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ.” should likely be in the signature block? Actually, in NY decisions, they often end the paragraph. I‘ll stick to the paragraph or a signature div if it looks like one. It looks like the concluding sentence of the opinion text block. I‘ll put it in a signature block div. Actually, looking at the layout, it‘s the last line of the opinion block before the next case starts. I‘ll use a signature div. Metadata check: `midpage-case-name`: `LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v. EMMA CALOGERO et al., Respondents, and ANDREW J. SMITH et al., Appellants.` (Wait, the comma after Byrne isn‘t in some captions, but here it is “LIAM BYRNE, Respondent, v EMMA CALOGERO...“. I‘ll keep the Respondent/Appellant labels in the full name, but not in shortName). Wait, the rule says “Bluebook-style short name (first party v. first opposing party, standard abbreviations, omit “et al.” and procedural phrases)“. So `Byrne v. Calogero`. Let‘s start.