You are here: / Plaintiff’s Decedent Fell to His Death in a Gorge on Property Owned...

Search Results

/

Plaintiff’s Decedent Fell to His Death in a Gorge on Property Owned by Cornell University—Questions of Fact Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent Was “Hiking” within the Meaning of the General Obligations Law (which Would Relieve the University of Liability) and Whether the Dangerous Condition Was Open and Obvious

The Third Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether plaintiff’s decedent was “hiking” within the meaning of the General Obligations Law when he fell into a gorge to his death on property owned by defendant Cornell University in Ithaca.  The court also determined there was a question of fact whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious:

Defendant maintains that it is shielded from liability by General Obligations Law § 9-103 (1) (a), which, as pertinent here, “grants a special immunity to owners . . . from the usual duty to keep places safe” when individuals use their property for specified recreational activities, including hiking … . The enumerated activities covered under the statute “are essentially self-explanatory” …. “Hiking” has been described as “traveling through the woods on foot” … and as “traversing land ‘by foot or snowshoe for the purpose of pleasure or exercise'” … . Comparatively, this Court recently determined that a person walking her dogs on a paved walkway was not engaged in “hiking” under the statute …. With one exception not applicable here, a person engaged in one of the enumerated activities is “presumed to be doing so for recreational purposes” without regard to his or her subjective intent ….

The critical determination is whether decedent’s activity constituted “hiking” under the statute. As described, he ran down the gorge trail and, in that literal sense, was “traveling through the woods on foot,” or “hiking,” as defined in Sega v State of New York … . The statute, however, speaks to specified recreational categories reflecting the intent of the Legislature “to allow or encourage more people to use more accessible land for recreational enjoyment” … . Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the nonmoving party, we agree with Supreme Court that, under the distinctive fact pattern presented, defendant did not establish, as a matter of law, that decedent was “hiking” within the embrace of General Obligations Law § 9-103 (1) (a) at the time of his death … .  * * *

…[A] question of fact remains as to whether the cliff’s edge was visible and obvious or presented a latent, dangerous condition necessitating an appropriate warning… . King v Cornell Univ, 2014 NY Slip Op 05393, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

/

Questions of Fact Whether Handrail Which Did Not Extend to the Top of the Stairs Constituted a Dangerous Condition Which Proximately Caused Plaintiff’s Fall

The Third Department determined the fact that a handrail did not extend to the top of the stairs raised a question of fact about a dangerous condition of which the defendant had constructive notice:

The fact that the handrail only starts at the third step down the staircase presents a question for a factfinder to resolve as to whether this placement created a dangerous condition … .

Further, defendant did not meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that the lack of a handrail extending to the top of the stairs did not cause or contribute to claimant’s fall … . “Even if [claimant’s] fall was precipitated by a misstep, given her testimony that she reached out to try to stop her fall, there is an issue of fact as to whether the absence of a handrail [at the top of the stairs] was a proximate cause of her injury” … . Likewise, the fact that claimant had used the stairs in the past and may have been aware of the defective condition did not defeat her claim but, rather, this “may be considered by a jury in assessing comparative negligence”… . Carter v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05394, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

/

Questions of Fact Whether Picnic Table Near the Edge of a Porch Was a Dangerous Condition and Whether the Condition Was Open and Obvious

The Third Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether defendant created a dangerous condition in placing a picnic table near the edge of a porch that had no railing and whether the condition was open and obvious.  Plaintiff got up from the picnic table and fell off the edge of the porch, which was less than 29 inches from the ground (it was alleged no railing was required by the applicable codes):

…[The]evidence is sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether defendant created a dangerous condition by negligently placing the picnic table close to the porch’s edge and failing to demarcate or guard this ledge … . Factual issues also exist as to whether defendant’s negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of Hannah’s injury, as this is not a case “‘where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts'” … .

Defendant also claims that it had no duty to warn of the alleged dangerous condition created by the unguarded drop-off at the porch’s edge, as any such hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law. “It is axiomatic that a landowner has no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition that is readily observable by the normal use of one’s senses, and this postulate applies to adults and minors alike” … . However, a landowner [*3]has a duty to warn against even known or obvious dangers where he or she “has reason to expect or anticipate that a person’s attention may be distracted, so that he or she will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he or she has discovered, or fail to protect himself or herself against it” … . Here, upon considering all of the surrounding circumstances, including the nature and layout of the event being hosted by defendant …, we find that triable issues of fact exist as to whether the drop-off constituted an open and obvious hazard such that defendant was relieved of its duty to warn … . Jankite v Scoresby Hose Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05390, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

/ , ,

Question of Fact Whether Hospital Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-Employees

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital could be held vicariously liable for the actions of nonemployee doctors with respect to plaintiff’s decedent who was initially treated in the emergency room.  The court explained the applicable law:

Under settled law, a hospital ordinarily may not be held liable for the negligent acts of treating physicians who are not hospital employees … . Vicarious liability for malpractice on the part of nonemployee physicians may be imposed, however, on a theory of ostensible or apparent agency … . “‘Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority’ to act on behalf of the principal” … . Consequently, “a hospital may [face vicarious liability] for the acts of independent physicians if the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room and seeks treatment from the hospital, not from a particular physician” … . Friedland v Vassar Bros Med Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 05388, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

/

First Appellate Decision Addressing the Computation After Default of a Delinquent Tax Installment Agreement

In a tax foreclosure proceeding based upon the alleged default of the respondent in making installment payments on the taxes owed, the Third Department, in finding County Court had not correctly determined the redemption amount correctly, explained, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy,  how the calculation should be made:

We begin with the statutory requirements for installment agreements, as relevant to a default. RPTL 1184 (6) calls for amortization of interest over the period of the agreement and says that each installment payment is due on the last day of the month. RPTL 1184 (7) refers to RPTL 924-a for the applicable interest rate, which here is 12% per annum or 1% per month (see RPTL 924-a [1], [2]). Pursuant to RPTL 1184 (7), “[i]f an installment is not paid” by its due date, “interest shall be added at the applicable rate for each month or portion thereof until paid. In addition, if an installment is not paid by the end of the fifteenth calendar day after the payment due date, a late charge of [5%] of the overdue payment shall be added.” In the event of a default, the taxing authority has “the right to require the entire unpaid balance, with interest and late charges, to be paid in full” (RPTL 1184 [8] [b]), and can also go forward with foreclosure or enforce the collection of the delinquent tax lien pursuant to any other applicable law (see RPTL 1184 [8] [b]). * * *

We start by explaining how to calculate “the entire unpaid balance.” Although the statute may be complex, we find that its language is unambiguous and, therefore, we must give effect to its plain meaning … . Respondent acknowledges that it failed to pay the September, October and November 2011 installment payments. The “entire unpaid balance” must be figured as of the date that petitioner demanded that the balance be paid in full (or accelerated it), which occurred here after the September installment payment was overdue. When that payment was not paid by its due date, 1% interest should have begun to accrue (see RPTL 1184 [7])[FN3]. The statute calls for interest to be added if “an installment” is not paid, so this interest should be calculated on the overdue September installment payment. In addition, a 5% late charge should have been added for the September installment payment because that payment was overdue by more than 15 days (see RPTL 1184 [7] [imposing late charge of 5% “of the overdue payment”]). So the amount owed as of the date of acceleration, but before acceleration occurred, included the amount of the September installment payment, plus 1% interest on that installment payment amount from the day after the September payment was due until the date of acceleration, plus 5% of the September installment payment amount as a late charge. Adding that sum of September’s payment, interest and late charge to the remaining unpaid principal as of the date of acceleration (covering what would have been the October and November installment payments, but not including the amortized interest for those months as those payments were not yet due under the agreement) will produce “the entire unpaid balance.”

From the time that the balance was demanded (or accelerated), 1% interest per month is due on that amount until the property was redeemed. Although interest is still calculated at 1%, this interest rate is not determined under the statutory provisions dealing with interest on installment agreement payments (see RPTL 1184 [6], [7]), but is determined under the default provision of RPTL 1184 (8) (b) that allows petitioner to enforce the collection of the delinquent tax lien pursuant to any other applicable law (i.e., RPTL 924-a, which addresses interest on tax delinquencies).  Matter of County of Ulster…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05398, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

/ ,

Parcels of Land Entitled to Tax Exempt Status Despite Alleged Violations of Building and Fire Code

The Third Department determined three parcels of land were entitled to tax exempt status, based upon the use of the land for religious and charitable purposes, despite alleged building and fire code violations:

RPTL 420-a (1) (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for religious [or] charitable . . . purposes . . . and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon\. . . such purposes . . . shall be exempt from taxation as [therein] provided.” To demonstrate entitlement to this exemption, “(1) the [petitioning] entity must be organized exclusively for purposes enumerated in the statute, (2) the property in question must be used primarily for the furtherance of such purposes, . . . (3) no pecuniary profit, apart from reasonable compensation, may inure to the benefit of any officers, members, or employees, and (4) the [petitioning] entity may not be simply used as a guise for profit-making” … . Notably, “a property owner seeking a real property tax exemption which demonstrates that it is a not-for-profit entity whose tax-exempt status has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service and whose property is used solely for [charitable] purposes has made a presumptive showing of entitlement to [the] exemption” … . * * *

…[B]ecause the alleged violations do not divest petitioner of its ability to use the affected parcels for religious or charitable purposes, such violations cannot operate to deprive petitioner of a tax exemption to which it otherwise has demonstrated entitlement. To the extent that respondents believe that petitioner is not in compliance with all relevant provisions of the Town’s building and fire code, their remedy is to issue a stop work order or pursue whatever enforcement proceedings may be available. Oorah Inc v Town of Jefferson, 2014 NY Slip Op 05387, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

/

Anesthesiologist Was Not an Employee

The Third Department determined an anesthesiologist was not an employee of QPMA:

Where, as here, the work of medical professionals is involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the purported employer retained “‘overall control’ . . . ‘over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means'” … .

Here, undisputed evidence was presented that, after QPMA referred claimant to PCSC, claimant set her own work schedule, performed all services at PCSC’s location, used PCSC’s supplies and equipment, and wore surgical scrubs bearing PCSC’s logo. Claimant’s per diem rate of pay of $1,000 per day was agreed to by her and a principal of QPMA, and QPMA paid her twice a month. Notably, however, QPMA did not issue claimant a W2 form, have a written contract with her, verify her credentials, retain any supervisory authority over her, provide her with performance reviews or evaluations, or maintain medical records related to her services. In addition, claimant paid her own malpractice insurance and licensing fees, was not reimbursed for travel expenses and was not restricted from working for others. Significantly, it was PCSC that dealt with any complaints related to claimant’s services. Although QPMA was responsible for referring another anesthesiologist if claimant was unable to perform her duties, the record as a whole does not demonstrate that QPMA retained sufficient overall control over important aspects of claimant’s work to be considered claimant’s employer… . Matter of Jean-Pierre …, 2014 NY Slip Op 05397, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

/

Fact that a Sidewalk Is Smooth (Inherently Slippery) or Slippery When Wet Is Not an Actionable Defect

The First Department noted that the facts that a sidewalk is inherently slippery because of its smoothness or that it is slippery when wet are not actionable defects:

The mere fact that a sidewalk is “inherently slippery” by reason of its smoothness or becomes more slippery when wet does not constitute an actionable defect … . Plaintiff’s expert’s finding lacked probative force and failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a defective or dangerous condition in the absence of any assertion of a violation of a specific, applicable industry standard which contributed to the accident … .

* * *[Plaintiff’s] claim that granite constituted an “unapproved non-concrete material” is unsupported. Bock v Loumarita Realty Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04426, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

/ , , ,

Under Mental Hygiene Law, Claim Made for Payment from Nursing Home Resident’s Guardianship Account During Resident’s Life Had Priority over Claim by Department of Social Services After Resident’s Death

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, determined that a nursing home (Eastchester) which had submitted a claim for the resident’s (Shannon’s) care to the resident’s guardianship account during the resident’s life had priority over the Department of Social Services, which submitted a claim for the resident’s care (Medicaid) to the resident’s estate after death:

Eastchester, a skilled nursing facility, admitted Edna Shannon into its care in 2005. In 2008, due to Shannon’s need for assistance, and concerns about the proper handling of her finances by third parties, Eastchester commenced a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to have a guardian appointed for her person and property. It also filed an application for medical assistance for Shannon’s nursing home costs. In 2009, DSS determined that Shannon was eligible for Medicaid, effective September 1, 2008. By order and judgment entered April 24, 2009, Supreme Court appointed Family Service Society of Yonkers as her guardian. Among other things, the court conferred on Family Service Society the authority to pay Shannon’s nursing home expenses and to pay bills after her death. Shannon died in December 2011 at age 87. * * *

As Eastchester was to be paid out of the guardianship account before any funds passed to the estate, its claim had priority over DSS’s claim.  MHL § 81.44(d) provides that, within 150 days of the death of an incapacitated person, the guardian must serve on the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, or if none, the public administrator or chief fiscal officer, a statement of assets and notice of claim, and “except for property retained to secure any known claim, lien or administrative costs of the guardianship,” deliver all guardianship property to the personal representative, public administrator, or chief fiscal officer (emphasis added). Matter of Shannon, 2014 NY Slip Op 04452, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

/ ,

Sellers Entitled to Keep Downpayment Based Upon Purchaser’s Failure to Close on Law Day

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the sellers’ motion for summary judgment and allowed the sellers to keep the purchaser’s downpayment based upon the purchaser’s failure to close on the date set by a “time-of-the-essence” demand.  The court explained the applicable law as follows:

“To prevail on a cause of action for the return of a down payment on a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant breached or repudiated the contract and that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform on the closing date” … . “While a vendee can recover his [or her] money paid on the contract from a vendor who defaults on law day without a showing of tender or even of willingness and ability to perform where the vendor’s title is incurably defective, a tender and demand are required to put the vendor in default where his [or her] title could be cleared without difficulty in a reasonable time” … . The seller in such a case is entitled to “a reasonable time beyond law day to make his [or her] title good” … . “[W]hile a purchaser must normally first tender performance and demand good title to place a seller in default, when the vendor is given notice of the defect prior to the scheduled closing date and does nothing to correct it until after the closing date, the purchaser need not tender performance as such tender would be meaningless'” … . “[W]here a seller seeks to hold a purchaser in breach of contract, the seller must establish that [he or she] was ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the purchaser failed to demonstrate a lawful excuse for its failure to close” … . *  *  *

…[T]he sellers demonstrated, prima facie, that they were given no notice of the alleged defect, and that the purchaser was therefore required to appear at closing and tender her performance … . Furthermore, under these circumstances, the sellers were entitled to a reasonable adjournment to allow them to address the purchaser’s objections, notwithstanding the fact that they had declared that time was of the essence … . Moreover, the sellers satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating that they were ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the purchaser failed to demonstrate a lawful excuse for her failure to close … . Martocci v Schneider, 2014 NY Slip Op -5308, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

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