You are here: / LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD...

Search Results

/ ,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff (Kelly) should not have been allowed to file a late notice of claim in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No reasonable explanation was offered and defendant housing authority did not have timely notice of the substance of the claim:

​

… Kelly failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority]. Kelly’s excuse, that he first discovered the identity of the owner of the subject walkway at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, arose from a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter, which is an unacceptable excuse … . Even if Kelly made an excusable error in identifying the public corporation upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, he failed to proffer any explanation for the additional seven-month delay between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

Furthermore, NYCHA did not acquire timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting Kelly’s claim. Although the City was served with a notice of claim within 90 days after the accident and conducted a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing about 5½ months after the accident, notice to the City cannot be imputed to NYCHA … . Moreover, the notice of claim, served together with the application upon NYCHA almost 10 months after the 90-day statutory period had elapsed, was served too late to provide NYCHA with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … .

Finally, Kelly presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that his delay in serving a notice of claim upon NYCHA did not substantially prejudice NYCHA in defending on the merits … . Kelly v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06640, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM,  PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim should have been denied. Although the school was aware of the student’s injury, it was not timely made aware of the negligent supervision claim. The fact that the school did not demonstrate prejudice from the delay was not determinative:

​

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish that the School District acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the child’s accident or a reasonable time thereafter. Although the school nurse prepared a “Notification of Injury” form, which the petitioner signed nearly two months after the accident, this form merely indicated that the child received a laceration and contusion on the outer corner of his left eye when he fell on the steps of the large slide. Thus, the form did not provide the School District with timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claims that it was negligent in supervising its students, and in the hiring and training of school personnel … . Therefore, the School District had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligence … .

… [P]etitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The child’s infancy alone, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … . Moreover, to the extent that the petitioner attributed her delay to the need to determine that the proper entity to sue was the School District, a readily ascertainable fact, such a claim does not constitute a reasonable excuse… .

While the petitioner did satisfy her initial burden of showing a lack of substantial prejudice to the School District as a result of her late notice, and the School District failed to make a “particularized evidentiary showing” of substantial prejudice in response … , the presence or absence of any one factor is not necessarily determinative in deciding whether permission to serve a late notice of claim should be granted… . A balancing of the relevant factors … demonstrates that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition … . McClancy v Plainedge Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 06651, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the insurer was not obligated to defend an action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment and foreclosure of mechanic’s liens. The commercial liability policy covered only personal injury, property damage and advertising injury:

​

“The general rule is that a commercial general liability insurance policy does not afford coverage for breach of contract, but rather for bodily injury and property damage”… . To hold otherwise would render an insurance carrier a surety for the performance of its insured’s work … . The determination of an insurer’s duty to defend must be drawn from allegations of the underlying complaint … . Here, the complaint in the Owens action sounds exclusively in breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and seeks to foreclose on mechanic’s liens. There is no claim for bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury as is required to trigger coverage under the policies herein. J.W. Mays, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 06639, Second Dept 9-27-17

INSURANCE LAW (COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND SEEKING FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/COMMERCIAL LIABILITY INSURANCE (COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND SEEKING FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a substantive decision, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defendant was not informed by his attorney that the plea would trigger mandatory deportation:

​

… [D]efense counsel incorrectly advised the defendant that his plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree would preserve his eligibility to apply for a cancellation of removal, when, in fact, his conviction constituted an aggravated felony, rendering him mandatorily deportable and ineligible for cancellation of removal … . Courts have recognized the significance to a defendant, in pleading guilty, of a possibility of discretionary relief from removal … . The lack of such a possibility here was “succinct, clear, and explicit” and could have been determined simply from reading the text of the statute … . Thus, counsel had a duty to give correct advice as to the immigration consequences of the plea … . Counsel failed to do so, instead misadvising the defendant that there was a possibility of receiving a cancellation of removal. * * *

​

Given the circumstances here, including the defendant’s focus on the immigration consequences of his plea, his large incentive to negotiate a plea which did not render him mandatorily deportable without eligibility for relief, the possibility of offering the People such a plea with the same sentence or even a longer aggregate sentence, and the fact that the prosecutor was unconcerned with the immigration consequences of the plea, the defendant established a reasonable probability that he could have negotiated a plea agreement that did not impose mandatory deportation without eligibility for relief … . Thus, the defendant established the requisite prejudice from counsel’s misadvice under Strickland, and further that counsel’s error was “egregious and prejudicial” such that it denied him meaningful representation under the New York Constitution … . People v Abdallah, 2017 NY Slip Op 06657, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEPORTATION,  DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))

/

MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined manifest necessity justified the declaration of the mistrial over the defendant’s objection because a crucial prosecution witness (the complainant in a sex offense prosecution) could not be located. Although there was no evidence the defendant caused the witness’s unavailability, there was evidence the witness’s mother was responsible:

​

The petitioner was charged with course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and predatory sexual assault against a child, and the case proceeded to trial. After the jury was sworn, but before opening statements were made and before any testimony was offered, the prosecutor requested three consecutive continuances, as the complainant and her mother could not be located . * * *

​

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . ” Manifest necessity'” means a ” high degree of necessity'” based on reasons that are ” actual and substantial'”… . Moreover, before declaring a mistrial, a court must explore all appropriate alternatives and must provide a sufficient basis in the record for resorting to this “drastic measure” … . Where a mistrial is premised upon the claimed unavailability of crucial prosecution evidence, including witnesses, the validity of that claim is subject to the “strictest scrutiny” since a prosecutor is not entitled to a mistrial merely to gain a more favorable opportunity to convict … .

Here, the prosecutor made a sufficient showing that the unavailability of the 13-year-old complainant, who had absconded to an unknown location with her mother, could be factually attributed to some person acting on the petitioner’s behalf … . Moreover, the trial court properly gave the prosecutor additional time to find the witness and considered other alternatives, including the prosecutor’s application for leave to introduce at the trial the witness’s grand jury testimony.  Matter of Palacios v Singas, 2017 NY Slip Op 06652, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant (Cina), an officer of defendant corporation (Artisan), could be held personally liable for his tortious acts. Supreme Court had held the corporate structure insulated Cina from personal liability. It was alleged Cina misrepresented that limestone had been stolen, inducing plaintiff to purchase replacement limestone:

​

“A director or officer of a corporation does not incur personal liability for its torts merely by reason of his [or her] official character” … , and thus, cannot be liable for torts “attributable to the corporation if he [or she] did not participate in and was not connected with the acts in any manner” … . However, ” [a] corporate officer who participates in the commission of a tort may be held individually liable, regardless of whether the officer acted on behalf of the corporation in the course of official duties and regardless of whether the corporate veil is pierced'” … .

​

Here, the Supreme Court incorrectly directed the dismissal of the causes of action alleging conversion and fraud insofar as asserted against Cina on the ground that there was “no basis on which to pierce the corporate veil.” The complaint adequately alleged that Cina participated in the act allegedly constituting conversion by asserting that Cina arranged to have the replacement limestone delivered to [another party] instead of the plaintiff, and that he participated in the alleged fraud by knowingly misrepresenting the facts regarding the delivery of the original limestone, with the intent of inducing the plaintiff’s detrimental reliance. That Cina’s alleged conduct may have been committed “on behalf of the corporation in the course of official duties” does not prevent liability from being imposed upon him … . North Shore Architectural Stone, Inc. v American Artisan Constr., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06655, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (CORPORATE OFFICERS, PERSONAL LIABILITY, CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (CORPORATE OFFICERS, PERSONAL LIABILITY, CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/CONVERSION (CORPORATE OFFICERS, PERSONAL LIABILITY, CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/OFFICERS (CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cooperative board should not have given the owner of a second-floor cooperative apartment (Haffey) permission to construct a second floor terrace without the consent of the investor-owner of the first-floor cooperative apartment. The cooperative’s guidelines, which can be waived, required the first-floor owner’s consent to the construction of a second-floor terrace. The board’s decision singled out investor-owners for different treatment and cannot be justified under the business judgment rule. The court noted the board’s determination is properly the subject of an Article 78 proceeding:

​

… [In] “the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination so long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . “To trigger further judicial scrutiny, an aggrieved shareholder-tenant must make a showing that the board acted (1) outside the scope of its authority, (2) in a way that did not legitimately further the corporate purpose or (3) in bad faith”… . “[T]he broad powers of cooperative governance carry the potential for abuse when a board singles out a person for harmful treatment or engages in unlawful discrimination, vendetta, arbitrary decision making and favoritism” … .

… [T]he board’s determination to dispense with the consent requirement and allow Haffey to erect the subject terrace without the petitioner’s consent was not protected by the business judgment rule. By dispensing with the petitioner’s consent, and, more generally, the consent of first-floor shareholders-tenants who do not reside in the building, the board deliberately singled out the petitioner, as well as tenant-shareholders who do not reside on the premises, for harmful treatment and engaged in favoritism toward tenants-shareholders who resided on the premises. As such, the petitioner established that the board’s determination to dispense with his consent did not legitimately further the corporate purpose and was made in bad faith … . Matter of Dicker v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06645, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

COOPERATIVES (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against a police officer whose police car struck plaintiff should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was standing in the road at the double yellow lines when the officer, responding to an emergency call, moved over the double yellow line:

​

Defendants demonstrated that defendant police officer was engaged in an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, by submitting evidence that the officer was responding to a radio call about a “man with a gun” when her police vehicle struck plaintiff … . Defendants’ evidence also showed that the officer was engaged in conduct privileged under the statute at the time of the accident, since her vehicle straddled and then crossed the double yellow lines, in disregard of regulations “governing directions of movement” (VTL § 1104[b][4]). Accordingly, defendants demonstrated that the officer’s conduct is to be assessed under the statute’s “reckless disregard” standard… .

Defendants further demonstrated that the officer did not operate the police vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others … . The officer testified that traffic warranted moving her vehicle left and operating it on the double yellow lines to avoid the stopped vehicles to her right and ahead of her. The officer had no duty to engage her sirens or lights, as she was operating a police vehicle, and her failure to do so was not evidence of recklessness …. Moreover, the officer testified that she attempted to avoid plaintiff, who was standing on the double yellow lines, by swerving behind her, an assertion that plaintiff supported with her own testimony … .

​

In opposition, plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that there was no emergency, and failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others. Green v Zarella, 2017 NY Slip Op 06599, First Dept 9-26-1

 

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, RECKLESS DISREGARD, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, (POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-bicyclist’s (Cook’s) employer (AGI) was not vicariously liable for the bicyclist’s actions. Cook was riding his own bicycle on his own time when he struck and killed plaintiff. Cook worked as a bicycling coach for AGI. The court also found that the negligent hiring and retention cause of action was properly dismissed:

​

The motion court correctly determined that AGI could not be held vicariously liable for Cook’s alleged negligence, as Cook was acting outside the scope of his employment. At the time of the accident, Cook was engaged in a weekend bicycle ride, in a public park, using a bicycle that he purchased and equipped, was alone and was not coaching anyone, and was not acting in furtherance of any duties owed to AGI … .

Cook’s unsupported belief, as set forth in an affirmative defense, that his bicycle riding had a work component to it, and his unsworn Response to the Notice to Admit (see CPLR 3123[a]), which improperly sought admissions as to employment status, a contested issue central to the action … , do not create triable issues of fact as to whether Cook was acting in the scope of employment … . …[T]here is no indication that AGI was exercising any control over Cook at the time of the accident … .

​

The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s direct negligence claim against AGI. There is no evidence that AGI knew or should have known of Cook’s alleged propensity to dangerously ride his bicycle in Central Park, an element necessary to support the claim for negligent hiring and retention … , and plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of deficient training are insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Fein v Cook, 2017 NY Slip Op 06603, First Dept 9-26-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, DEFENDANT BICYCLIST WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE STRUCK AND KILLED PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER NOT VICARIOUSLY OR DIRECTLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))

/

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP THE FLOOR DRY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant demonstrated it took adequate measures to keep the floor free of water and the area where plaintiff fell was inspected ten minutes before the slip and fall. Defendant Roza 14W’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

​

Plaintiff Frank Kelly was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell on water on the marble floor in the lobby of Roza 14W’s building. It was snowing lightly at the time of the accident and the floor had mats in various locations, but not in the area where plaintiff slipped.

Roza 14W made a prima facie showing that a reasonable cleaning routine was followed on the day of the accident … . Roza 14W submitted evidence that, in addition to the mats, wet floor warning signs were placed in the lobby, two porters were assigned to walk around the lobby to dry mop wet areas, and the area where plaintiff fell was found to be clean and dry 10 minutes before the fall.

Plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Roza 14W was not obligated to either continuously mop up moisture tracked onto its floor… or to cover the entire floor with mats … . In addition, the affidavit of plaintiffs’ expert failed to cite any violation of an accepted industry practice, standard, code, or regulation …. . Kelly v Roza 14W LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06630, First Dept 9-26-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP THE FLOOR DRY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP THE FLOOR DRY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRACKED IN WATER (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP THE FLOOR DRY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD 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