You are here: / STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE B...

Search Results

/ ,

STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES.

The Second Department determined the state did have a duty to warn swimmers of rip currents. Claimant’s decedent drowned after a rip current pulled him away from shore:

Turning to the merits, “the State must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining [its] property,'” such as a park, ” in a reasonably safe condition'” … . “The duty goes beyond the mere maintenance of the physical condition of the park” … , as there is a “recognized duty of general supervision” … . The degree of general supervision must be “adequate” … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it furnished a sufficient number of lifeguards, that those lifeguards were experienced and competent, and that they reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure … . In opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

Furthermore, the defendant has no duty to warn swimmers of threats arising from the existence of natural, transitory conditions of the ocean floor … , including rip currents … . Seetaram v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00336, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/COURT OF CLAIMS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/SWIMMERS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/RIP CURRENTS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)/STATE PARKS (STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES)

/

EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted pursuant to the emergency doctrine. Plaintiff’s car crossed into oncoming traffic and struck defendants’ car. Defendants demonstrated the emergency doctrine applied. No question of fact was raised about defendant driver’s negligence:

The defendants established, prima facie, that the defendant driver was presented with an emergency situation not of his own making when the plaintiff’s vehicle crossed over into his lane of traffic, and that he acted reasonably in response to that emergency … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her deposition testimony, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, did not create a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident … . Graci v Kingsley, 2017 NY Slip Op 00291, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

NEGLIGENCE (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

/

NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY. 

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined the owner of a taxicab did not owe a duty to plaintiff who was injured by the cab when an occupant of the cab rendered the driver unconscious during a robbery. The administrative rule requiring a partition between the passenger area and the driver was deemed designed to protect the driver of the cab, not the general public outside of the cab.  Similarly a broken CB radio in the cab did not breach a duty owed to the general public:

Plaintiffs focus on the foreseeability of the type of accident that occurred in the absence of safety devices that would have protected the driver from assault. They argue that since those safety devices would protect not only the driver, but other motorists and pedestrians who might be injured by the driver, the owner of the vehicle owed a duty to both the driver and to plaintiffs to install safety equipment that would protect them.

With regard to how foreseeability interconnects with duty, some confusion has arisen from the classic language of Chief Judge Cardozo’s decision in Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. (248 NY 339, 344 [1928]), that “[t]he risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.” These words have sometimes been misinterpreted to mean that the foreseeability of harm can “spawn[] a duty” to prevent that harm (see e.g. Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781, 787 [1976] [dissenting opinion]). However, the majority in Pulka v Edelman clarified the error of this reasoning, to explain that foreseeability may not be relied on to create a duty:

“Foreseeability should not be confused with duty. The principle expressed in Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co. (248 NY 339, supra), quoted by the dissent, is applicable to determine the scope of duty — only after it has been determined that there is a duty. Since there is no duty here, that principle is inapplicable” (Pulka, 40 NY2d at 785). On v BKO Express LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 00281, 1st Dept 1-17-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY)/DUTY (NEGLIGENCE, NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY)/FORESEEABILITY (NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB AFTER THE DRIVER WAS RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS DURING A ROBBERY)

/

PLANK USED TO CROSS GAP IN ROOF COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. A plank plaintiff was using to cross a gap in the roof collapsed:

The alleged discrepancies between plaintiff’s account of the accident and the accounts of two of plaintiff’s coworkers are irrelevant to plaintiff’s central contention that he fell when the plank collapsed, and that he was not provided with proper protection … . Moreover, defendant raised no issues of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Even assuming the presence of additional safety devices at the work site, there was no evidence that plaintiff was aware of their availability or that he was expected to use them … . DeFreitas v Penta Painting & Decorating Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00277, 1st Dept 1-17-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLANK USED TO CROSS GAP IN ROOF COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/

PLAINTIFF INJURED BY A PORTION OF A ROOF WHICH FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was injured when a portion of a roof fell on him unexpectedly when another portion of the roof was being demolished. The court further determined the property manager could be held liable as the agent of the owner:

Since that part of the roof above plaintiff was not the intended target of demolition at the time of the collapse, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Furthermore, defendant Gibraltar Management Co., Inc. was the manager of the property, which handled all activities related to its management and contracted with RA Lynch Excavating for the demolition of the building. Accordingly, it may be held liable as an agent of the owner pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) … . Ragubir v Gibraltar Mgt. Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00265, 1st Dept 1-17-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A PORTION OF A ROOF FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/DEMOLITION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW,  (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A PORTION OF A ROOF FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER)/PROPERTY MANAGER (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROPERTY MANAGE COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER)

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT.

The First Department, in a case reversed and remitted by the Court of Appeals, determined there was a question of fact whether contractual subrogation provisions applied to certain policies covering injury by lead paint (remitting the case to Supreme Court). The Court of Appeals had held the antisubrogation rule did not apply to preclude recovery:

Given the ambiguities in the relevant agreements, we cannot find as a matter of law that the insurers are entitled to contractually subrogate to ANP’s indemnification rights. On remand, the motion court is to consider the intent of these provisions in light of the extrinsic evidence. Millennium Holdings LLC v Glidden Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 00258, 1st Dept 1-17-17

INSURANCE LAW (LEAD PAINT, SUBROGATION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT)/SUBROGATION (INSURANCE LAW, LEAD PAINT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT)/LEAD PAINT (INSURANCE LAW, LEAD PAINT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT)

/ , , ,

TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD.

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to be fairly summarized here, determined a town board of assessment review (BAR) is a quasi-judicial body and is therefore entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Third Department further determined that causes of actions for civil rights violations (42 USC 1983) against two town assessors individually (stemming from allegedly discriminatory property tax assessments) can go forward:

Consistent with the provisions of RPTL 523, the Town was required to have a board of assessment review (see RPTL 523 [1] [a]), and its individual members, in turn, were required to attend mandated training (see RPTL 523 [1] [d]; [2]). Here, in accordance with its appointed duties, the BAR had a statutory obligation to “fix the place or places for the hearing of complaints in relation to assessments” (RPTL 525 [1]) and, on the date required by law, to “meet to hear complaints in relation to assessments” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]). Upon convening for the required hearing, the BAR could “administer oaths, take testimony and hear proofs in regard to any complaint and the assessment to which it relates” and, further, could “require the person whose real property is assessed, or his or her agent or representative, or any other person, to appear before [it] and be examined concerning such complaint, and to produce any papers relating to such assessment” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]). “Minutes of the examination of every person [so] examined” were required to “be taken and filed in the office of the . . . town clerk” (RPTL 525 [2] [a]), and the BAR thereafter was required to “determine the final assessed valuation or taxable assessed valuation . . . of the real property of each complainant” (RPTL 525 [3] [a]), “prepare and verify a statement showing the changes determined to be made by them in the assessments” and notify each complainant of its determination and the time within which to seek judicial review thereof (RPTL 525 [4]). In light of these statutory mandates, it is apparent that the BAR’s determinations constitute decisions of a quasi-judicial nature and, hence, the BAR (and its individual members) are entitled to absolute immunity … . * * *

… [S]uffice it to say that [defendants town assessors’] proof … fell short of establishing that the assessors valued plaintiff’s property in a nondiscriminatory fashion and, therefore, defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment [on the violation of civil rights causes of action]. Corvetti v Town of Lake Pleasant, 2017 NY Slip Op 00227, 3rd Dept 1-12-17

 

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/MUNICIPAL LAW (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/IMMUNITY (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/CIVIL RIGHTS (42 USC 1983) (TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)/42 USC 1983 (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, TOWN BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOWN ASSESSORS INDIVIDUALLY CAN GO FORWARD)

/ , , , ,

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO INTENTIONAL (AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENT) CONDUCT.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action against defendant accountants (Fuller) stemming from a workers’ compensation trust found to be more than $8 million in debt. The 2nd Department also found Supreme Court properly applied the six year statute of limitations to the allegedly intentional acts by the defendant accountants (designed to conceal the debt). The defendant accountants unsuccessfully argued the three-year (negligence/malpractice) statute of limitations should apply. Regarding the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, the 2nd Department explained:

Although the duty owed by an accountant is generally not fiduciary in nature … , a fiduciary relationship exists where the accountant is “under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of [the client] upon matters within the scope of the relation” … . This inquiry is “necessarily fact-specific” … , and the dispositive factor is whether there is “confidence on one side and resulting superiority and influence on the other” … . Plaintiff alleged that Fuller held itself out to have the requisite skill and expertise to maintain the trust’s financial records, provide auditing services and — importantly — provide advice to the trust regarding the trust’s financial status. According to plaintiff, Fuller breached its fiduciary duty by knowingly and consistently concealing the trust’s true financial condition and failing to properly advise the trust regarding its solvency, causing over $8 million in damages. Accepting these allegations as true and giving plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference … , we find that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is sufficiently stated to survive Fuller’s motion to dismiss … .  New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Fuller & LaFiura, CPAs, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 00225, 3rd Dept 1-12-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/FRAUD (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/ACCOUNTANTS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS)

/

FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant condominium owner was properly ejected from the condominium for failure to pay the common charges:

… [T]he Condominium Act and the applicable bylaws for the subject condominium authorize a lien for unpaid common charges and permit a lien foreclosure action and an action for the appointment of a receiver where appropriate (see Real Property Law §§ 339-z, 339-aa). Further, the order appointing the receiver in this matter authorized the receiver to take certain actions, including ejectment of defendant from the property … . * * *

Ejectment of defendant from the unit was not unconstitutional, since he failed to comply with the court’s prior order directing him to pay the “reasonable fair market rent” of $6,500 per month for his use and occupancy of the unit. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, he was properly required to pay rent on the unit, regardless of the fact that he was the unit’s owner, since both Real Property Law § 339-aa and section 5.9 of the bylaws provide that in a lien foreclosure action, “the Unit Owner shall be required to pay a reasonable rental for the use of said Unit Owner’s Unit.” It is inconsequential and irrelevant to this action that defendant defeated plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the 2011 action. Nor does ejectment under these circumstances deprive defendant of his “real property ownership/occupancy rights without due process of law.” Heywood Condominium v Wozencraft, 2017 NY Slip Op 00257, 1st Dept 1-12-17

 

CONDOMINIUMS (FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM)/COMMON CHARGES (CONDOMINIUMS, FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM)/EJECTION (CONDOMINIUMS, FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM)

/

OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Defendant (Schindler) failed to secure a seven-foot wooden panel which apparently fell and injured plaintiff. The court noted that the open and obvious nature of the panel eliminated the duty to warn but not the duty to make the premises safe:

Schindler’s arguments that the wooden panel that its workers leaned against the wall was open and obvious, that plaintiff failed to use her senses to observe it, and that any barricades or warnings would not have prevented the accident, are unpreserved as they were not presented to the motion court … . In any event, we would find such arguments unavailing because even if a hazard is open and obvious, that merely eliminates the duty to warn, but not the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . Here, it is undisputed that Schindler’s employees failed to secure the seven-foot tall wooden panel that they leaned against the wall or create a perimeter around it to prevent others from entering the area. Polini v Schindler El. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00254, 1st Dept 1-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)/WARN, DUTY TO (OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE)

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