You are here: / EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED...

Search Results

/

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT THAT THE FALL OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN EXCAVATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's testimony, which presented conflicting descriptions of where she slipped and fell, was sufficient to raise a question of fact whether the fall took place in the area which had been excavated by defendant (Empire):

Empire failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she tripped and fell on a defect located within a crosswalk. Empire failed to show that the work it performed in the vicinity of plaintiff's fall could not have caused the defect because it was outside the area where plaintiff stated her accident occurred … . Although plaintiff did testify that she fell “[a]t least three feet” from the curb that she was approaching and Empire records show that it excavated a trench about 10 to 14 feet from the subject curb, plaintiff also stated that she was not good at measurements and twice described the accident location as being “[a]bout three-quarters” of the way across the intersection, which would be in the area of Empire's trench work. Prunella v Empire City Subway Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 00100, First Dept 1-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT THAT THE FALL OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN EXCAVATED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT THAT THE FALL OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN EXCAVATED (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SLIP AND FALL, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT THAT THE FALL OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN EXCAVATED (FIRST DEPT))

/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS INTERSECTION COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DID NOT STOP AT A STOP SIGN, ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant's (Bishop's) motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this intersection traffic accident case. The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger (Pulinario) failed to stop at a stop sign. No question of fact was raised about Bishop's comparative negligence:

Bishop met her prima facie burden for summary judgment by demonstrating that Pulinario was negligent as a matter of law, and that Bishop was not negligently operating her vehicle. Bishop and plaintiff testified that Pulinario failed to stop for a stop sign, which is a violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a), which constitutes negligence as a matter of law… . Bishop, who had the right of way, was ” entitled to anticipate that other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield,' and ha[d] no duty to watch for and avoid a driver who might fail to stop . . . at a stop sign'” … .

Although a driver lawfully entering an intersection may still be found partially at fault for an accident if he or she fails to use reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle in the intersection … , plaintiff and Pulinario failed to raise a triable material issue of fact as to whether Bishop was negligent. The evasive measures that Bishop took during the less than three seconds before impact did not constitute negligence, “under the emergency-like circumstances confronting her” … . Gonzalez v Bishop, 2018 NY Slip Op 00095, First Dept 1-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS INTERSECTION COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DID NOT STOP AT A STOP SIGN, ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS INTERSECTION COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DID NOT STOP AT A STOP SIGN, ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was standing on top of a sidewalk shed as he loaded sheetrock into a building when the shed broke. The fact that there were no witnesses did not raise a question of fact:

Plaintiff Pedro Serrano was injured when, during the course of moving sheetrock into a building, he stood on top of a sidewalk shed that broke beneath him, causing him to fall to the sidewalk below. While the motion court correctly determined that these facts demonstrated plaintiffs' prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … , it erred in finding that EAS [defendant] raised a triable issue of fact. That no witness other than plaintiff testified as to the occurrence of the accident does not bar judgment in his favor, “where nothing in the record contradicts his version of the occurrence or raises an issue as to his credibility” … , and defendant EAS's expert report was purely speculative in that it was not based on an examination of the sidewalk shed at the time of the accident … . Serrano v TED Gen. Contr., 2018 NY Slip Op 00113, First Dept 1-9-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTIVE LAW, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner property owner had stated causes of action alleging the town's rezoning of the property was arbitrary and capricious and constituted reverse spot zoning. The property had been zoned for resort-type development but, after a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review by the town, the property was rezoned to preclude development. The regulatory taking cause of action was dismissed as not ripe because petitioner had not first sought compensation. The SEQRA review and negative declaration were deemed properly done (requisite hard look taken):

Petitioner asserts, as a result, that the Town Board's decision to rezone the subject property arbitrarily disregarded the comprehensive plan's finding that a planned resort community was appropriate for the subject property. The 2015 report proposed the rezoning in order to address changed conditions in keeping with the spirit of the comprehensive plan, and it is debatable whether petitioner can ultimately “establish[] by competent evidence that the Town Board's decision to . . . change its zoning ordinance as it affects [the subject] property was arbitrary and unreasonable” … . Nevertheless, accepting the allegations in the petition/complaint as true, and noting the absence of documentary proof conclusively establishing a defense to them …, petitioner articulated a cognizable claim.

Petitioner also alleges that the subject property was “arbitrarily singled out for different, less favorable treatment than neighboring properties in a manner that was inconsistent with a well-considered land-use plan” so as to constitute discriminatory reverse spot zoning … . In our view, the … allegations are sufficient to state a cognizable claim for reverse spot zoning … . Matter of Wir Assoc., LLC v Town of Mamakating, 2018 NY Slip Op 00059, Third Dept 1-4-18

ZONING (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/SPOT ZONING (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SEQRA REVIEW PROPERLY DONE (THIRD DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (PROPERTY OWNER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE REZONING TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND CONSTITUTED REVERSE SPOT ZONING, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SEQRA REVIEW PROPERLY DONE (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the defendants who had contracted with the property owner/manager to remove snow from the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell on ice were not liable to plaintiff under an Espinal exception:

It is well-settled that a party that contracts with a property owner to provide snow and ice removal services cannot be liable to a third party who is injured on the property unless “(1) . . . the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties launche[d] a force or instrument of harm; (2) . . . the plaintiff detrimentally relie[d] on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties; [or] (3) . . . the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002] … ).

… [W]hile [the snow removal contractor] retained some independent authority, we cannot conclude that the agreement “displaced entirely” [the property owner's] duty to maintain the property … . …

[The defendants' meteorologist's] affidavit fails to raise a material question of fact, inasmuch as the evidence demonstrates only that defendants may have failed to clear all of the ice and snow, a fact that does not constitute the affirmative creation of a dangerous condition … . Hutchings v Garrison Lifestyle Pierce Hill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00057, Third Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (NEGLIGENCE, CONTRACT LAW, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE FOR PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL, ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the denial of the defendants' motions for summary judgment in this third party assault case. The defendants are the owner-operators of a domestic violence shelter and the security company hired by the shelter. Plaintiff child, CB, was shot while CB and his father, Bobby B, were waiting for CB's mother to come down to the gate to accompany CB back to where she and CB were residing in the shelter. Bobby B had asked the guards to let the child in because Bobby B had been followed by several men. The child was not let in. The guards called CB's mother a couple of times telling her the child was waiting. One of the men who followed Bobby B approached with a gun and demanded Bobby B's jacket. In a struggle the gun discharged striking and paralyzing CB:

With respect to the common-law duty, landowners have “a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [their] . . . property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances”…, which includes taking minimal safety precautions to protect against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third persons … .

We reject defendants' contention that they had no common-law duty to CB because the shooting took place outside the building, i.e., because CB was on the street side of the gate. Plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether the security booth, gate, and recessed area that CB was standing in were part of the shelter property and not the public sidewalk. However, even if CB was not standing on shelter property, it cannot be said that under any circumstance [the owner] owed no duty to him. …

​

Although the contract [with defendant security company] clearly provides that CB is an intended third-party beneficiary, there are issues of fact as to the benefits that CB is entitled to under the contract. It should be noted, however, that allowing a child in danger to enter the shelter does not appear to be in derogation of any rules prohibiting unarmed guards from intervening in an altercation. CB v Howard Sec., 2018 NY Slip Op 00087, First Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT BY THIRD PARTY (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONTRACT LAW, SECURITY COMPANY, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OWNER OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY THE SHELTER WERE LIABLE FOR THE SHOOTING OF A CHILD JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE OF THE SHELTER, THE CHILD WAS AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SHELTER AND THE SECURITY COMPANY (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant bus company (Hudson) was liable for plaintiff's fall. She stepped in a hole in the sidewalk as she got off the bus. The court noted a duty to provide a safe place to get off the bus and a contractual duty to notify Port Authority of needed repairs:

Issues of fact exist as to whether Hudson breached its duty as a common carrier to provide plaintiff with a safe place to disembark … . The record shows that 15 or 20 passengers exited the bus before plaintiff. As she alighted, she stepped into a hole on the sidewalk and fell. The bus driver corroborated this testimony, stating that the hole was on the sidewalk, “[w]ithin one step” of where plaintiff disembarked. The bus driver further admitted that the hole caused plaintiff to fall. Additionally, plaintiff testified that, upon seeing where she fell, the bus driver exclaimed, “[Y]ou fell in that hole, they're supposed to fix that hole.” Under the circumstances, where plaintiff stepped into a hole immediately upon alighting from the bus, the fact that a number of passengers safely descended before she did does not entitled Hudson to summary judgment … .

Issues of fact as to, among other things, whether Hudson breached its contractual duty to notify Port Authority of any needed repairs at the gate where the accident occurred compel denial of summary judgment on Port Authority's contractual indemnification claim. Bruno v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 00069, First Dept 1-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND (FALL QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES  (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST DEPT))

/

EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE THE ELEVATOR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there were questions of fact precluding defendants' motions for summary judgment in this elevator misleveling slip and fall case. There was evidence the building owner had notice of the problem and evidence the elevator company (Fugitec) may not have properly maintained the elevator. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was also applicable:

The record contained ample evidence from which a jury could find that the owner had actual notice of a recurring, misleveling problem with the elevator, based on prior similar incidents shown in the building's logbook and based on service records of Fujitec, which had contracted to maintain the elevator … . Fujitec's servicing of the elevator in response to those prior complaints raises an issue of fact as to notice … . …

… [T]here is an issue of fact as to whether the owner's liability, if any, is vicarious… . Due to the adverse inference charge the court previously granted against the owner, a jury might find that the owner had actual notice of the misleveling defect on the day of the accident, before plaintiff's injury. In addition, given the adverse inference charge, a jury could find that the owner was negligent in either failing to timely notify Fujitec of the misleveling defect, or in failing to remove the elevator from service. Such negligence would bar the owner from obtaining common-law indemnification from Fujitec … . …

​

… [T]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur precludes summary judgment… . “The misleveling of an elevator does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence” … . Further, the misleveling was apparently caused by an instrumentality within Fujitec's exclusive control and was not due to any voluntary action on plaintiff's part. The application of res ipsa loquitur is not “overcome by [Fujitec's] evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained”… . Given the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, plaintiff was not required to identify a malfunction or defect in the elevator … . Dzidowska v Related Cos., LP, 2018 NY Slip Op 00074, First Dept 1-4-18

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE THE ELEVATOR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE THE ELEVATOR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATORS (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE THE ELEVATOR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the fact that the pro se notice of claim was not verified was properly overlooked by Supreme Court and, although the notice did not explicitly describe a cause of action for malicious prosecution, the allegations were sufficient to put the municipality on notice that a malicious prosecution cause of action was contemplated. Only a mailcious prosecution claim was timely (the false arrest and false imprisonment claims were untimely):

Plaintiff's notice of claim does not specifically refer to the fact that he was charged with harassment in the second degree or to the dismissal of those charges. Nonetheless, plaintiff's assertions that he was falsely arrested without legitimate cause, that no crime took place and that City employees acted maliciously provided sufficient notice to defendants that plaintiff potentially had a claim for malicious prosecution. Although they protect different personal interests and are composed of different elements, claims for “false arrest and malicious prosecution are kindred actions insofar as they often aim to provide recompense for illegal law enforcement activities” … . Causes of action for false arrest and malicious prosecution are related closely enough that, in a trial of both, the court must instruct the jury not to make a duplicate award of damages… . Moreover, actual malice is an element of a cause of action for malicious prosecution, but not of a cause of action for false arrest … . Thus, receipt of a notice of claim alleging that its agents acted maliciously in executing a false arrest when no crime had occurred provided the City with the opportunity to investigate all circumstances related to plaintiff's arrest, including whether he had been arrested pursuant to a warrant — which would have insulated defendants from liability for false arrest … — and whether plaintiff's arrest had resulted in him being charged with, or prosecuted for, a crime. Hone v City of Oneonta, 2018 NY Slip Op 00055, Third Dept 1-4-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FACT THAT PRO SE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED, FACTS IN NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY CITY OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))

/

ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent, Widdecombe, was injured in an accident within the meaning of the applicable uninsured motorist policy. Widdecombe was concerned because the driver, Germain, who had been drinking, should not drive. When Widdecombe attempted to take the keys, Germain drove off, dragging and injuring Widdecombe:

… [F]or purposes of an uninsured motorist endorsement, when an occurrence is — from the insured's perspective — “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen,” it qualifies as an “accident”… .  … “[T]he intentional assault of an innocent insured is an accident within the meaning of his or her own policy” … .

… [W]hatever Germain's intent and criminal liability, this incident was an accident from Widdecombe's perspective. Contrary to petitioner's contention, Widdecombe's uncontroverted testimony established that the incident “happened so fast” and, after he attempted to grab the keys, Germain said that “he was going to cut [Widdecombe's] leg off” and, as Widdecombe tried to get his leg out of the car, Germain “threw the car in drive” and “screeched” away, dragging Widdecombe. … [T]his event “was clearly an accident from the insured's point of view,” since having his leg trapped and being dragged was sudden and “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. (Widdecombe), 2018 NY Slip Op 00061, Third Dept 1-4-18

INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENT (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))/UNINSURED MOTORIST (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD 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