You are here: / School Not Liable for Three-Year-Old’s Failure to Get Off the Bus...

Search Results

/

School Not Liable for Three-Year-Old’s Failure to Get Off the Bus After Arrival at the School—Child Had Not Yet Entered the Orbit of the School’s Authority—Although School Voluntarily Undertook the Duty to Determine the Whereabouts of Absent Students, the Parents Were Not Aware of that Policy and Therefore Could Not Have Relied On It

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and dismissed the complaint against a private school.  The infant plaintiff, a three-year-old with special needs, was left on the bus which transported him to school for six hours.  The Second Department determined the child had not yet entered the “orbit of” the school’s authority.  In addition, although the school voluntarily undertook to determine the whereabouts of absent children, there was no showing the child’s parents were aware of the policy:

A school’s duty to its students is dependent on its physical custody of those students (see Stephenson v City of New York, 19 NY3d 1031, 1033). Custody ceases when the student has passed out of the “orbit of” the school’s “authority” … . Here, it is undisputed that Nicholas never passed into the physical custody of the school, as he never left the bus. * * *

Voluntary conduct may give rise to liability, even if there would otherwise be no duty to act, if “the defendant’s affirmative action adversely affected the plaintiff and the defendant failed to act reasonably”… . In order for a party to be negligent in the performance of an assumed duty, however, the plaintiff must have known of and detrimentally relied upon the defendant’s performance, or the defendant’s actions must have increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff … . Arroyo v We Transp Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03965, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/

Injury Caused by an Unsecured Scaffolding Component Which Fell Approximately Two-Feet, Striking Plaintiff, Was Not the Type of Elevation-Related Risk Which Is Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)

Plaintiff was injured when a component of scaffolding fell about two-feet and struck him.  The Third Department determined the incident was not the result of a circumstance covered by Labor Law 240 (1) (the absence of statutorily-required safety equipment), even though the incident was “gravity-related.”  However, the Labor Law 246 (1) cause of action, alleging a violation of a provision of the Industrial Code, and the Labor Law 200 cause of action against the general contractor which supervised and controlled the work, should not have been dismissed. With respect ot the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the court explained:

Labor Law § 240 (1) “imposes absolute liability on building owners and contractors whose failure to ‘provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site’ proximately causes injury to a worker” … . The statute is intended to provide “extraordinary protections [applicable] only to a narrow class of dangers. More specifically, [the statute] relates only to special hazards presenting elevation-related risks” … . Accordingly, “section 240 (1) does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker; ‘[a] plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute'” … . Where, as here, an injury is caused by a falling object, liability “depends on whether the injured worker’s task creates an elevation-related risk of the kind that the safety devices listed in section 240 (1) protect against” … . An elevation-related risk arises only where there is a “physically significant elevation differential” … . In order to determine whether a height differential is physically significant, we must consider “the weight of the object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent” … . Without a significant elevation differential, Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply, even if the injury is caused by the application of gravity on an object … .

Here, “tak[ing] into account the practical differences between the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and . . . the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by [the statute],” as we must …, we find that plaintiff’s injury, caused by the tipping frame or scaffold component (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4), did not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Our conclusion remains even if we accept it to be true that the frame was part of a scaffold that was in the process of being assembled or dismantled … . The record indicates that, at most, the crossbar of the frame, which was upright but not connected to any other component or supporting any planking, was two feet above plaintiff’s head. In our view, the facts do not present a physically significant height differential and, while plaintiff was exposed to a general workplace hazard, he was not exposed to an elevation-related risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . As such, this cause of action should be dismissed. Christiansen v Bonacio Constr., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04700, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/ ,

Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor Explained

The Second Department determined the defendant hospital was not liable for the alleged negligence of a doctor (Berlingieri) who was not a hospital employee.  In the course of the decision, the court explained when a hospital may be liable for the actions of a non-employee doctor:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . An exception to this general rule exists where a plaintiff seeks to hold a hospital vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of an attending physician who is not its employee where “a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … . Thus, in order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law defeating a claim of vicarious liability, a hospital must demonstrate that the physician alleged to have committed the malpractice “was an independent contractor and not a hospital employee” …, and that “the exception to the general rule did not apply” … . In this case, the hospital met that burden by demonstrating that Berlingieri was not a hospital employee, and that [plaintiff] sought treatment from a particular physician, Joanow, went to the hospital at Joanow’s direction, and was in fact treated by Joanow and a medical team that he assembled shortly after her admission … .

A plaintiff may rebut a hospital’s prima facie showing by raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the hospital can be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of an attending physician who is not under its employ pursuant to a theory of “apparent or ostensible agency” … . To support a viable claim based upon ostensible agency, a plaintiff must set forth facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the hospital engaged in some misleading conduct upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied when the plaintiff decided to accept medical services from the hospital … . There is no evidence that [plaintiff] was misled by the hospital into believing that Berlingieri was a member of its staff, and the record does not reflect any other allegation by [plaintiff] that she believed there to be an employment relationship between Berlingieri and the hospital, and that she thereupon accepted his services in reliance upon such a relationship … . Muslim v Horizon Med Group PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03991, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

/ , ,

Note Which Was Extended and Consolidated with Other Debts Was Not Extinguished by the Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA)—the Agreement, Therefore, Did Not Commence the Running of the Statute of Limitations for an Action on the Note

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA) did not extinguish a note which was extended and consolidated under the agreement. Therefore the statute of limitations for action on the note did not commence running when the agreement was entered:

We agree with plaintiff that the plain language of the CEMA does not support Supreme Court’s conclusion that the CEMA extinguished the 1992 note and thereby recommenced the running of the statute of limitations. “It is well established that a subsequent note does not discharge the original indebtedness secured unless there is an express agreement between the parties” … . Defendant points to no express agreement and cites no authority supporting its claim that the CEMA operated to extinguish the 1992 note. Rather, the record makes clear that defendant still owed approximately $169,000 on the 1992 note at the time that the CEMA was executed. That debt was consolidated with two other debts into a new note and the mortgage liens were “coordinated, consolidated, combined and extended” to form a single lien. “Where, as here, balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and CEMAs are executed to consolidate the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist” … . Bechard v Monty’s Bay Recreation, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04711, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/

Question of Fact Whether It Was Foreseeable that Overbooking a Theater Could Cause Crowd-Related Injury (Plaintiff Alleged Injury in a “Stampede”)

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether it was foreseeable that overbooking a movie theater would result in crowd-related problems. Here plaintiff alleged she was injured in a “stampede” which occurred when she and the group she was with were told to turn around and go back downstairs:

… [T]he motion court properly concluded that defendants did not establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It is well settled that landowners and permittees owe those “on their property a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain their property in a safe condition,” and “to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property” … . Under the circumstances presented, involving the deliberate overbooking of a theater for a free film screening, defendants were required to show that they took adequate crowd control measures to address the foreseeable risks to those attending in order to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating entitlement to summary judgment … . Here, defendants knew that the screening was deliberately overbooked, and it was, therefore, foreseeable that overcrowding could be a problem … . Deposition testimony from both plaintiff and Regal’s manager demonstrated that the staircase on which plaintiff fell was crowded, and that the crowd had formed a “stampede” after being redirected downstairs to find available seats in the crowded theater. Since defendants failed to present evidence that adequate crowd control measures were in place, the motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Sachar v Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04717, 1st Dept 6-4-15

 

/

Bank Did Not Demonstrate It Had Possession of the Note Prior to Commencing Foreclosure Action—Bank Did Not Have Standing to Bring the Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff-bank did not demonstrate it had possession of the note at the time the action was commenced, and therefore the bank did not have standing to bring the foreclosure action:

In a mortgage foreclosure action, where, as here, the plaintiff’s standing to commence the action is placed in issue by a defendant, “the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief” … . “[A] plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” … . “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. The relevant affidavits the plaintiff submitted contained conclusory statements regarding the plaintiff’s possession of the note, without any factual details of a physical delivery and, thus, failed to establish that the plaintiff had physical possession of the note prior to commencing the action … . The copy of the note the plaintiff submitted in support of its motion included an indorsement to the plaintiff but, because the indorsement was undated, it is not clear whether the indorsement was effectuated prior to the commencement of this action … . Although the written assignment of the mortgage that the plaintiff submitted was dated and recorded prior to the date this action was commenced, that assignment only transferred the mortgage. The plaintiff failed to show that the note also was assigned at that time … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Anderson, 2015 NY Slip Op 04606, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

Similar issue and result in Bank of Am., N.A. v Kyle, 2015 NY Slip Op 04705, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/ , , ,

Absence of Privity Between Beneficiary of an Estate and the Attorneys Who Represented the Estate in Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death Actions Precluded Legal Malpractice Action by Beneficiary

The Third Department determined the plaintiff-beneficiary of an estate represented by defendants-attorneys in medical malpractice and wrongful death actions could not bring a legal malpractice action against the attorneys (based upon the medical malpractice and wrongful death actions) because no attorney-client relationship existed. Absent fraud or collusion, the absence of privity between the beneficiary and the attorneys precluded the legal malpractice action:

There is no question that a legal malpractice claim requires — in the first instance — “the existence of an attorney-client relationship” … . Plaintiff does not contend, and the record does not otherwise reflect, that he had a contractual relationship with defendants. Rather, plaintiff argues that because defendants represented [plaintiff’s mother] in her capacity as the administrator of decedent’s estate in both the medical malpractice and wrongful death actions and plaintiff, in turn, is a beneficiary of decedent’s estate, it necessarily follows that defendants were duty bound to represent plaintiff’s best interests in the context of those two actions. The flaw in plaintiff’s argument on this point is that “[i]n New York, a third party, without privity, cannot maintain a claim against an attorney in professional negligence, absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances” … . Although a limited exception has been carved out with respect to an action brought by the personal representative of an estate, “strict privity remains a bar against beneficiaries’ and other third-party individuals’ estate planning malpractice claims absent fraud or other circumstances” … . Sutch v Sutch-Lenz, 2015 NY Slip Op 04692, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/ , , ,

Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division properly found that the “unwarned” statement made by 11-year-old Delroy should have been suppressed. The statement was made in Delroy’s apartment when a police officer asked him “what happened?”. Under the circumstances, “a reasonable 11 year old would not have felt free to leave” at the time the question was asked.  Therefore the question amounted to “custodial interrogation” in the absence of the Miranda warnings. The Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the Appellate Division, ruled the error was not harmless because the statement undermined Delroy’s defense of justification. There was no question Delroy stabbed the 12-year-old complainant.  But questions were raised by the trial testimony whether the stabbing was in self-defense. With respect to proof burdens for “harmless error” and the justification defense, the Court of Appeals explained:

A trial court’s error involving a constitutionally protected right is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only if “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … . “The People must show that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [and] [i]n deciding whether the People have met this burden, we consider both the overall strength of the case against defendant and the importance to that case of the improperly admitted evidence” … .

The record shows that while there was no doubt that Delroy had stabbed the complainant, there was evidence supporting Delroy’s justification defense. “The defense of justification . . . permits one to use deadly physical force on another when one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is being used or imminently will be used by such other person” … . The People bear the burden of disproving the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt … . * * *

…[T]he People have not demonstrated that there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongly admitted evidence might have contributed to the guilty finding. Matter of Delroy S., 2015 NY Slip Op 04676, CtApp 6-4-15

 

/ ,

Elements of a Defective Design Cause of Action Described

The Third Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether a machine was defectively designed. Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to make adjustments while the machine was running.  There was evidence the adjustments could have been made safely using another access point. The court provided a good explanation of the elements of a defective-design cause of action:

Liability for a defectively designed product “attaches when the product, as designed, presents an unreasonable risk of harm to the user” … . A successful cause of action for defective design exists where a plaintiff is able to establish “that the manufacturer breached its duty to market safe products when it marketed a product designed so that it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury” … . To demonstrate a product was not “reasonably safe,” the injured party must demonstrate both that there was a substantial likelihood of harm and that “it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner” .. . A claim may be defeated where a defendant demonstrates that the product’s “utility outweighs its risks [because] the product has been designed so that the risks are reduced to the greatest extent possible while retaining the product’s inherent usefulness at an acceptable cost” … . This “risk-utility analysis” requires consideration of “‘(1) the product’s utility to the public as a whole, (2) its utility to the individual user, (3) the likelihood that the product will cause injury, (4) the availability of a safer design, (5) the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced, (6) the degree of awareness of the product’s potential danger that can reasonably be attributed to the injured user, and (7) the manufacturer’s ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes'” … . Generally, the risk/utility analysis presents a factual question for a jury … . Barclay v Techno-Design, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04708, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

/ ,

Agency’s Failure to Follows Its Own Regulations Rendered Determination Arbitrary and Capricious

The Third Department determined that the NYS Education Department did not follow its own regulations in calculating the amounts due petitioner for special education services for preschool children with disabilities.  Failure to follow the regulations rendered the calculation “arbitrary and capricious:”

Petitioner contends that respondent failed to follow its own regulations and otherwise acted arbitrarily primarily by relying upon unaudited information from the municipalities, disregarding petitioner’s audited CFR [Consolidated Fiscal Report] and financial data, and refusing to consider petitioner’s explanation for the discrepancies between its audited information and the municipalities’ data. Our review of an administrative agency’s determination is limited to “ascertain[ing] whether there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it is arbitrary and capricious” …, and we have previously recognized that respondent has “broad discretion in setting the reconciliation rate” … . However, an agency determination arrived at in a manner inconsistent with its own regulations is not supported by a rational basis … . Although “an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference” … , “courts are not required to embrace a regulatory construction that conflicts with the plain meaning of the promulgated language” … . * * *

The intent of the regulations, consistent with common sense and good government, is to gather and use correct data; hence, the repeated directives that service providers submit information — CFRs and financial statements — that has been independently audited and certified by an appropriate professional (see 8 NYCRR 200.9 [e] [1] [i] [a] [1]; [ii] [a]). The regulations provide no authority for relying solely on unaudited information from municipalities. This does not lead to the conclusion that such information from a municipality has no role. It can be considered to require clarification or explanation from a service provider and, if adequately verified, even incorporated in the calculus. However, at a minimum, a service provider that has adhered to the regulations and provided a CFR and financial statement, both audited, should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain and/or reconcile its information with the unaudited information of a municipality. Consistent with its own regulations, respondent cannot simply reject audited information by reason of the existence of less reliable information without some articulable rational basis. Matter of Mid Is. Therapy Assoc., LLC v New York State Educ. Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 04707, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

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