You are here: / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM...

Search Results

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action against defendant property manager was properly denied. Defendant contracted with the board of a cooperative to manage the property. Plaintiff alleged defendant’s attempt to fix a minor leak caused water to damage his unit:

Regardless of which party had the burden of proof on the Espinal exception, the evidence submitted on the motion established that defendant attempted to fix the leak or leaks on several occasions and that the problem persisted and culminated in a flood of water “cascading” into plaintiff’s apartment. Plaintiff testified that the leak began on March 8, 2010, and lasted a few days. The leak started again in May 2010, and reoccurred in August 2010 and December 2010, and finally, the “big finale” of water cascading into plaintiff’s unit occurred in August 2011. Defendant attempted to fix the leaks on several occasions. Invoices dated March 10, April 13, September 28, and December 30, 2010 indicate that plumbing work was done in response to plaintiff’s complaints about water leaks. The notations in these invoices do not definitively establish whether or not defendant’s plumbers “launched a force or instrument of harm.” Thus, contrary to the dissent’s contention, the evidence raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant’s attempts to fix the water leak exacerbated the condition that led to the more serious leak that occurred in August 2011. Karydas v Ferrara-Ruurds, 2016 NY Slip Op 05941, 1st Dept 9-1-16

NEGLIGENCE (ESPINAL EXCEPTION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED)/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ESPINAL EXCEPTION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED)/TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED).ESPINAL EXCEPTION( QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED)

/

IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined that, where a question of fact has been raised in an accident case about whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent, summary judgment finding defendant liable cannot be granted. Here, the plaintiff was alleged to have been injured while walking behind a sanitation truck which was backing up:

In this case, we are revisiting a vexing issue regarding comparative fault: whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, as a matter of law, that he or she is free from comparative fault. This issue has spawned conflicting decisions between the judicial departments, as well as inconsistent decisions by different panels within this Department. The precedents cited by the dissent have, in fact, acknowledged as much. After a review of the relevant precedents, we believe that the original approach adopted by this Department, as well as that followed in the [2nd] Department, which requires a plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of freedom from comparative fault in order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of liability, is the correct one. …

The issue that arises in the context of a summary judgment motion brought by a plaintiff on the issue of liability is whether, as the dissent posits, the motion should be granted and the issue of contributory negligence considered during the damages portion of the case or where the defendant raises an issue of fact with respect to the plaintiff’s negligence and the plaintiff fails to show the absence of negligence on his or her part, the motion must be denied and that issue considered during the liability phase of the trial. As discussed herein, the latter is the fairer, and therefore the proper way to proceed. Rodriguez v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05943, 1st Dept 9-1-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, (IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)

/ ,

INSURER NOT LIABLE FOR POLLUTION DAMAGE DURING PERIODS WHEN POLLUTION INSURANCE WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer (Century) of plaintiff gas company (Keyspan) was not liable for pollution damage for periods of time which preceded the 16 years the policy was in place and during which pollution insurance was prohibited by law:

New York appellate courts … have not expressly ruled on the question presented here, which is: When the reason for the period of no insurance is that the insured could not have obtained insurance even if it had wanted to, is the risk attendant to the unavailability of insurance in the marketplace allocable to the existing, triggered insurance policies or to the insured? * * *

… [T]he order of the Supreme Court … which … denied defendant Century Indemnity Company’s motion for partial summary judgment declaring that Century is not responsible for any part of the costs of cleanup for periods of time when insurance was unavailable before 1953 and after 1986, should be unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted, and it should be so declared. Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05945, 1st Dept 9-1-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER NOT LIABLE FOR POLLUTION DAMAGE DURING PERIODS WHEN POLLUTION INSURANCE WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (POLLUTION INSURANCE, INSURER NOT LIABLE FOR POLLUTION DAMAGE DURING PERIODS WHEN POLLUTION INSURANCE WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW)/POLLUTION INSURANCE (INSURER NOT LIABLE FOR POLLUTION DAMAGE DURING PERIODS WHEN POLLUTION INSURANCE WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW)

/ , ,

SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, recalling and vacating a prior decision and order dated May 31, 2016, determined plaintiff did not state a cause of action for fraud. Plaintiff, a sophisticated investor, procured a majority interest in DuCool, a manufacturer of heating and cooling equipment. The plaintiff, in a share purchase agreement, acknowledged the speculative nature of the investment. And plaintiff was given full access to DuCool’s records prior to the purchase:

Where a cause of action is based in fraud, “the complaint must allege misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, falsity, scienter on the part of the wrongdoer, justifiable reliance and resulting injury” … . Furthermore, where the plaintiff is a sophisticated party, “if the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the [defendant’s] knowledge, and the [plaintiff] has the means available to [it] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, [the plaintiff] must make use of those means, or [it] will not be heard to complain that [it] was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations” … . Circumstances constituting fraud must be set forth in a complaint in detail (CPLR 3016[b]). MP Cool Invs. Ltd. v Forkosh, 2016 NY Slip Op 05944, 1st Dept 9-1-16

FRAUD (SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD)/SECURITIES (SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD)/CORPORATION LAW (SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD)

/ ,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s drug conspiracy conviction. Although there was proof a person with defendant’s name was part of the conspiracy, there was no proof defendant was that person:

We find that defendant Mohammed’s conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. In determining whether the jury’s verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence, the reviewing court must decide “whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial, and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged” … , including the identity of the defendant who committed the crime charged … . While there was sufficient evidence to show that a person by the name of Habiyb Mohammed took part in the conspiracy, the record is devoid of any identification of defendant Mohammed to be that same Habiyb Mohammed. People v Brown, 2016 NY Slip Op 05940, 1st Dept 9-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME)

/

ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.

The Second Department determined the Civil Rights Law did not apply to a video game which was alleged to have been based upon depictions of the plaintiffs Karen Gravano and Lindsay Lohan. The statute prohibits the unauthorized of one’s name, portrait or picture in advertising or trade:

Both Gravano’s and Lohan’s respective causes of action under Civil Rights Law § 51 “must fail because defendants did not use [plaintiffs’] name, portrait, or picture'” … . Despite Gravano’s contention that the video game depicts her, defendants never referred to Gravano by name or used her actual name in the video game, never used Gravano herself as an actor for the video game, and never used a photograph of her … . As to Lohan’s claim that an avatar in the video game is she and that her image is used in various images, defendants also never referred to Lohan by name or used her actual name in the video game, never used Lohan herself as an actor for the video game, and never used a photograph of Lohan … .

Even if we accept plaintiffs’ contentions that the video game depictions are close enough to be considered representations of the respective plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because this video game does not fall under the statutory definitions of “advertising” or “trade” … . Gravano v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05942, 1st Dept 9-1-16

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW)/VIDEO GAMES (CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW)

/

JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET.

The Second Department determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a quiet title action under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Plaintiff alleged a deed which purported to transfer her title to the property was forged. Defendant, citing the delay in plaintiff’s taking action, sought dismissal of the complaint on equitable estoppel grounds. The Second Department determined the “justifiable reliance” element of equitable estoppel had not been demonstrated:

Although [defendant] made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff knew of the allegedly forged deed transferring title from her to Edward Wallace, unjustifiably delayed almost two years in commencing this action from the time she was advised to do so by the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, and intended her delay to be acted upon, and that [defendant] lacked knowledge of the allegedly forged deed and prejudicially changed its position … , [defendant] failed to establish, prima facie, that its reliance upon the plaintiff’s conduct was justified … . Wallace v BSD-M Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05917, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

REAL PROPERTY (JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET)

/ ,

LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS.

In finding the out-of-possession landlord was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case, the Second Department noted that the landlord’s reservation of a right to enter the property to inspect and make repairs does not impose a duty to make repairs. The plaintiff alleged she slipped on ice in the workplace parking lot:

Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached a common-law duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that it was an out-of-possession landlord and, thus, had no duty to perform repairs or remove snow and ice from the premises … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had a duty to remove snow or ice under statute or regulation, the terms of the lease, or a course of conduct … . A landlord’s reservation of the right to enter property to inspect and make repairs does not in itself give rise to a duty to make repairs … . Keum Ok Han v Kemp, Pin & Ski, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05908, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS)/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS)

/

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall case should have been dismissed. Although plaintiff alleged she slipped on a marble floor, she did not know the cause of her fall:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . Scimone v LT Propco, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05915, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

/

USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of whether a roadway had been abandoned under Highway Law 205. The court noted that the lack of use by vehicles does not necessarily render a roadway abandoned. Use by pedestrians and bicyclists may suffice. The plaintiff demonstrated such recreational use. The town raised a question of fact whether the roadway had been abandoned with proof portions of the roadway were impassable:

Once a highway exists, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is demonstrated … . “It will be deemed abandoned, however, if it is not traveled or used as a public highway for six years” … . To show use as a highway, there must be evidence that travel proceeds, in forms reasonably normal, along the lines of an existing street … . Automobile use is not determinative in assessing whether a road has been abandoned … . Indeed, evidence of frequent recreational activity may be sufficient to preclude a finding of abandonment … . Dandomar Co., LLC v Town of Pleasant Val. Town Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 05905, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW)/HIGHWAY LAW (USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW)/ABANDONMENT (HIGHWAY LAW, USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW)

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