You are here: / Question of Fact Whether Out-of-Possession Landlord Created the Dangerous...

Search Results

/ ,

Question of Fact Whether Out-of-Possession Landlord Created the Dangerous Condition Which Caused Gas Escaping from a Propane Tank to Ignite/Question of Fact Whether the Injured Employee’s Negligent Act (the Employee, Against the Direction of His Supervisor, Brought a Partially-Filled Propane Tank Inside the Building) Was Foreseeable

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about the out-of-possession landlord’s liability for an accident which ignited gas from a propane tank.  The landlord had converted the building where the accident occurred for the operation of a propane tank refinishing business.  The business was continued by the tenant.  An expert concluded that there were several ignition sources within the building, installed by the landlord, which could have ignited the gas.  Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the out-of-possession landlord had created the dangerous condition.  In response to the argument that the negligence of injured employee (who brought a propane tank which still had gas in it into the building) was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the Third Department determined there was a question of fact about whether bringing such a partially filled tank inside the building (something employees were directed not to do) was foreseeable:

… [I]t is well established that, generally, “once possession has been transferred to a tenant, an out-of-possession landlord will not be held responsible for dangerous conditions existing upon leased premises” … . Exceptions to the general rule do exist, including situations where the landlord retains control over the leased premises, has agreed to repair or maintain the premises or “has affirmatively created the dangerous condition” … .

… [Landlord and tenant-employer] assert that the reckless conduct of [tenant’s] employees was the sole proximate cause of the explosion and that defendant cannot be held liable to plaintiffs merely because it allegedly furnished the condition that allowed for the accident. In order to sever the causal connection in this matter, it must be demonstrated that the employees’ actions were “extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from … defendant’s conduct” … . Certainly, the act of the [tenant’s] new employee of bringing a tank that was not marked as empty into the building –against the direct instructions of his supervisor–was negligent. Nonetheless, defendant and third-party defendant have failed to show that such conduct was unforeseeable, thereby “sever[ing] any causal link between [defendant’s] negligence and [decedent’s] injuries” … . Miller v Genoa AG Ctr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00586, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

/ , ,

Pulling Into Traffic Without Activating Lights and Siren Did Not Constitute Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others

The Third Department determined the vehicle accident was not the result of “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (vehicle and Traffic Law 1104) on the part of a police officer responding to an emergency.  Apparently the officer (Derkowski) had just began a pursuit and was pulling into traffic without his lights or siren activated when the collision occurred:

Derkowski intended to pursue a fleeing suspect in his patrol car, a pursuit that gained additional urgency when he spotted the suspect driving north on Lafayette Street (cf. Muniz v City of Schenectady, 38 AD3d at 991). Prior to turning onto the street in order to follow the suspect, Derkowski looked in both directions to ensure that no traffic was coming. His view of the southbound lane was obscured, however, by several illegally parked vehicles. Derkowski then turned left onto the street and collided with plaintiff. Derkowski did not activate his emergency lights or siren prior to turning, and plaintiff testified that it did not appear that Derkowski had his headlights on. Inasmuch as the pursuit had just commenced and Derkowski checked for oncoming traffic before turning, his failure to have lights and sirens on constituted nothing more than “a momentary lapse in judgment not rising to the level of ‘reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Rouse-Harris v City of Schenectady Police Dept, 2015 NY Slip Op 00591, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

/

Claimed Gestation Period of 303 Days Requires Reliable Medical Evidence It Is Scientifically Possible/Acknowledgment of Paternity by Another Did Not Preclude Petitioner from Bringing His Paternity Action

The Second Department determined that petitioner must produce reliable medical evidence that a 303-day gestation period (the time between sexual intercourse and birth) is scientifically possible before proceeding with a paternity action.  The court noted that an acknowledgment of paternity by another did not preclude petitioner from bringing his paternity action:

Appellate courts have held that the generally accepted period of gestation is between 38 and 40 weeks… . However, pregnancy periods can exceed that timeframe … . Indeed, in 1992, the Appellate Division, [3rd] Department, held that a period of gestation measured from the last menstrual period prior to the child’s birth can be between 265 and 299 days … . In the beginning of the last century, this Court, citing Code Napoleon, found that the period between sexual intercourse and birth could be up to 300 days … . Here, the petitioner alleges that 303 days, or 43 weeks and 2 days, elapsed between the last date of sexual intercourse with the mother and the birth of the child.

Any material deviation from the generally accepted average period of gestation must be explained with a reliable medical opinion … . Although no such evidence was presented at the hearing, under the circumstances of this case, a new hearing should be conducted to afford the petitioner an opportunity to present such evidence. Since the petitioner has the burden of proof, he must present reliable medical evidence to demonstrate that the 303-day gestational period alleged here is scientifically possible

A prior acknowledgment of paternity made in accordance with Family Court Act § 516-a does not serve as an insuperable bar to a claim of paternity by one who is a stranger to the acknowledgment … . * * * Therefore, upon remittal, if the petitioner satisfies his burden of demonstrating at the hearing, with reliable medical evidence, that a 303-day gestational period is scientifically possible, then the Family Court must determine whether to direct a DNA or genetic marker test in the child’s best interest.

 

/

Court Has the Discretion to Deny a Motion to Change Venue Where the Statutory Time-Limits for the Demand and Motion Are Not Met—Discretion Not Abused Here

The Second Department explained the rules associated with making a demand and motion for a change of venue.  If the demand and motion are not made within the statutory time-limits, granting the motion is a matter of discretion.  Denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion here:

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 510[1]) “shall be served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511[a]…). “Thereafter the defendant may move to change the place of trial within [15] days after service of the demand” (CPLR 511[b]). Since the appellants failed to serve a timely demand for a change of venue and failed to make a motion for that relief within the statutory time period, they were not entitled to a change of venue as of right, and their motion became one addressed to the court’s discretion … . Giddings v Century 21 Dept Stores LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00493, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/

Criteria for a “Special Exception Permit” (Versus a “Variance”) Explained

The Second Department, in upholding the zoning board’s denial of a special exception permit and a variance, explained the criteria for a special exception permit:

“Unlike a variance which gives permission to an owner to use property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance, a special exception gives permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right” … . Thus, the burden of proof on an owner seeking a special exception is lighter than that on an owner seeking a variance … . The owner must show compliance with legislatively imposed conditions pertaining to the intended use before a special exception permit may be granted … . The denial of a special exception permit must be supported by evidence in the record and may not be based solely upon community objection … . However, where such evidence exists, deference must be given to the discretion of the board authorized to rule upon the application. A court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the board, even if such a contrary determination is itself supported by the record … .

Here, the Board’s determination that the petitioner failed to establish compliance with the legislatively imposed conditions for issuance of the requested special exceptions was supported by evidence in the record, and was not affected by an error of law, was not arbitrary and capricious, was not an abuse of discretion, and was not irrational… . Matter of M & V 99 Franklin Realty Corp v Weiss, 2015 NY Slip Op 00541, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/

Time-Limit for Serving a Complaint Was Never Triggered Because the Summons with Notice Was Filed But Not Yet Served at the Time Defendants Served a Notice of Appearance and Demand for a Complaint

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the time-limit associated with a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint was never triggered because the notice of appearance and demand for a complaint were made before defendants were served with the summons with notice (the summons with notice was filed but never served here):

The plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a summons with notice. It is undisputed that the summons with notice was never served on the defendants… . * * *

An action may be commenced “by filing a . . . summons with notice” (CPLR 304[a]…). “Service of the . . . summons with notice . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action or proceeding” (CPLR 306-b…). “If the complaint is not served with the summons, the defendant may serve a written demand for the complaint” (CPLR 3012[b]). “Service of the complaint shall be made within twenty days after service of the demand” (id.). “If no demand is made, the complaint shall be served within twenty days after service of the notice of appearance” … . “The court upon motion may dismiss the action if service of the complaint is not made as provided in this subdivision” … .

As this Court has previously recognized, “[n]o provision is made for an appearance or a demand for a complaint before the summons is served” … . A demand for a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) prior to service of the summons is premature and does not invoke the time limitations of CPLR 3012(b) … .

Here, since the summons with notice had never been served, the notice of appearance and demand for a complaint was a nullity and the 20-day period within which the complaint had to be served pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) had not begun to run … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) … . Ryan v High Rock Dev LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00519, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/

Marching Band Director Did Not Assume the Risk of Injury Caused by a Defect in the Roadway

The Second Department determined the doctrine of primary assumption of risk was not available where the plaintiff, the music director of a marching band, was injured by a defect in the roadway where the band was marching.  The court noted that extending the assumption of risk doctrine to persons using streets or sidewalks would constitute an unwarranted diminution of the duty to keep sidewalks and streets reasonably safe:

The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is inapplicable in this case. It cannot be said that by leading a marching band in a parade on a public street, the injured plaintiff consented to the alleged negligent maintenance of the street by the County … . “[E]xtension of the doctrine [of primary assumption of the risk] to cases involving persons injured while traversing streets and sidewalks would create an unwarranted diminution of the general duty of landowners–—both public and private–—to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition” … . Behr v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 00485, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/

“Transacting Business” Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted the Connecticut defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Defendant had transacted business in New York within the meaning of the long-arm statute:

Under New York’s long-arm statute, “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302[a]), regardless of whether that non-domiciliary has actually entered New York State … . Whether a defendant has transacted business within New York is determined under the totality of the circumstances, and rests on whether the defendant, by some act or acts, has “purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege[s] of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … . Proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, as long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted … .

Here, the complaint asserts that the defendant, through its agent, solicited the plaintiff’s services while present in New York. The record indicates that the defendant’s agent traveled to New York for three meetings with the plaintiff before the parties finalized their agreement, and that the defendant’s agent subsequently traveled to New York in furtherance of the contract. Moreover, the parties engaged in numerous telephone and email communications regarding the contract. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant conducted sufficient purposeful activities in New York, which bore a substantial relationship to the subject matter of this action, so as to avail itself of the benefits and protections of New York’s laws … . Paradigm Mktg Consortium Inc v Yale New Haven Hospital Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00508, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Ordered a Unified (Liability and Damages) Trial–Criteria Explained in Some Depth

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on liability and damages because the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the nature of his injuries had an important bearing on the issue of liability. Plaintiff, who was driving a golf cart,  was injured when he allegedly swerved to avoid defendant’s on-coming golf cart.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria in some depth:

“In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice [a] court . . . may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue” (CPLR 603). Furthermore, “[a] court may determine the sequence in which the issues shall be tried and otherwise regulate the conduct of the trial in order to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition of the matters at issue” (CPLR 4011). These statutory provisions simply confirm that “the broad common-law powers of New York judges over conduct in their own courtrooms have been continued and have not been eliminated or impinged upon by any of the explicit CPLR provisions.”… .

“Judges are encouraged to order a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action for personal injury where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” (22 NYCRR 202.42[a]…). “As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately” … .

“The decision whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” (…see CPLR 603, 4011). Unified trials should only be held “where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability” … . However, even where a trial is bifurcated, some evidence of injuries may nevertheless be admitted, in the trial court’s discretion, to establish liability at the liability phase of the trial, so long as such evidence is probative of liability and accompanied by “an appropriate limiting instruction” … .

Accordingly, when exercising its discretion in deciding whether to conduct a unified trial or a bifurcated trial, a court should determine whether the nature of the alleged injuries is probative of the issue of liability and, furthermore, should also evaluate the relative importance of such evidence to the parties’ dispute … . In addition, the probative value of such evidence to the issue of liability and its centrality to the parties’ dispute should be weighed against the degree to which the gravity of such injuries will likely engender sympathy for the plaintiff and thereby pose a risk of prejudice to the defendant … . Patino v County of Nassau, 2015 NY Slip Op 00509, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

/ , ,

Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, which was made (and granted) before plaintiff had completed putting in his case.  Plaintiff fell from a ladder at a work site and alleged a violation of Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence:

Prior to the close of the plaintiff’s case, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, concluding that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition at the work site. The Supreme Court thereafter entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. …

The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. “A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Schultz v Hi-Tech Constr & Mgt Serv Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00521, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

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