You are here: / / Assumption of Duty to Maintain Sidewalk; No Expert Notice Needed for Treating...
, , ,

Assumption of Duty to Maintain Sidewalk; No Expert Notice Needed for Treating Physician

In reversing a judgment after a jury trial in a slip and fall case, the First Department discussed several issues that came up in the trial, including the denial of a missing witness charge with respect to one of the defense doctors, a translation problem raised by the translator (which may have given the jury the misimpression plaintiff was confused about an important issue), the assumption by the defendant Department of Education (DOE) of a duty to make the sidewalk outside a school (where plaintiff fell) safe, and the trial court’s ruling that one of plaintiff’s treating physicians could not testify because no “expert witness” notice was provided.  In addressing the school’s assumption of a duty with respect to the condition of the sidewalk and the exclusion of plaintiff’s treating physician, the First Department wrote:

The DOE argues on appeal that the action should have been dismissed as against it because it did not own the sidewalk where plaintiff fell. New York City Charter § 521(a) provides that “title to all property … acquired for school or educational purpose … shall be vested in the city, but under the care and control of the board of education for the purposes of public education, recreation and other public uses.” Education Law § 2554(4) affirmatively charges the DOE with responsibility for “the care, custody, control and safekeeping of all school property or other property of the city used for educational, social or recreational work.” ……[W]here there was evidence that the DOE affirmatively undertook the duty to maintain the sidewalk, the court was well within its discretion in submitting the question of the DOE’s negligence to the jury ….

CPLR 3101(d)(1) provides that, upon request, parties must identify those expected to be called as experts and “disclose in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify … and a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.” However, the failure to serve a CPLR 3101(d) notice with regard to a treating physician, such as Dr. Geller, is not grounds for preclusion of the physician’s expert testimony as to causation where there has been disclosure of the physician’s records and reports, pursuant to CPLR 3121 and 22 NYCRR 202.17 … .  Hamer v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 03431, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

You might also like
THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
A COMBINED MOTION TO REARGUE AND MOTION TO RENEW IS PROPER; HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTION TO REARGUE BUT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION TO RENEW; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
Even Though Length of Merging Lane Was a Factor in Accident, It Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE CASE TURNED ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED, THE INTOXILYZER RESULTS WERE INCONSISTENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT.
ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, HERE THE DECEDENT’S SIGNATURE ON THE GUARANTY WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN AN INTERESTED WITNESS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GUARANTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Assumption of Risk Extends to Condition of Outside Basketball Court Governmental Immunity Applied to Preclude Recovery by Bicyclist​