You are here: / Plaintiff Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall/Therefore, There Was an Insufficient...

Search Results

/

Plaintiff Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall/Therefore, There Was an Insufficient Showing of a Connection Between Alleged Building Code Violations and the Fall

The Second Department determined that alleged building code violations concerning the slope of stairs and the height of a handrail were not sufficiently connected to the accident to withstand summary judgment. Plaintiff testified she did not know the cause of her fall down the exterior stairs:

…[Plaintiff] testified that she did not know what caused her to fall and stated that she “pitch[ed]” forward … . … The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an expert who opined that the subject stairs were built in violation of the New Rochelle Building Code since, inter alia, the steps were sloped forward more than 2% and the handrail was lower than required. However, the plaintiff did not testify that she fell because of the slope of the steps or because she was unable to grasp the handrail due to its height. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to present evidence to connect the alleged building code violations to her fall … . Maglione v Seabreeze By Water Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02756, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

/ ,

Question of Fact Raised about Whether Injury at Summer Day Camp Resulted from Inadequate Supervision

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether games played at a summer day camp were adequately supervised.  The complaint alleged the injury was caused when plaintiff was pushed by an older child, and futher alleged the five teens who were supposed to be supervising the game were sitting together on a bench, not paying any attention to the game:

“[S]chools and camps owe a duty to supervise their charges and will only be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision” … . Whether such supervision was adequate and if, inadequate, whether it was a proximate cause of the subject injuries are generally questions for the trier of fact to resolve … . “An injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow [camper or] student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” … .  Osmanzai v Sports & Arts in Schools Found Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02760, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

/ ,

Allegation that Town Planted a Tree Near a Sidewalk and Did Not Maintain the Roots, Thereby Creating a Dangerous Condition, Is an Allegation of “Nonfeasance,” not an “Affirmative Act of Negligence”

The Second Department determined an allegation that a municipality planted a tree near a sidewalk and failed to maintain the tree roots did not support a negligence action based upon the creation of a dangerous condition:

…[T]he plaintiff alleged in his notice of claim, complaint, and bill of particulars that the Town affirmatively created the subject dangerous condition through various specified acts of negligence. “[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . The Supreme Court, in denying the Town’s motion, concluded that it failed to meet its prima facie burden since it did not demonstrate that it did not affirmatively create the condition alleged. However, the Supreme Court erred in so concluding. The evidence submitted in support of the motion established that the planting of a tree or trees adjacent to the sidewalk where the accident occurred, and the alleged failure to maintain the roots of the tree or trees, would at most constitute nonfeasance, not affirmative negligence … . In opposition, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants …raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town created the condition alleged through an affirmative act of negligence. Lipari v Town of Oyster Bay, 2014 NY Slip Op 02755, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

/ ,

Abutting Landowners’ Responsibilties for Sidewalk Defects and Defects Relating to Covers and Gratings Explained

The Second Department explained the New York City law applicable to the responsibilty of abutting landowners with respect to sidewalks, and with respect to covers or gratings within or near the sidewalks:

…[L]iability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner … . However, an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a sidewalk where the landowner created the defect, caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk … . Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which was in effect at the time of the accident, shifts liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . Legislative enactments in derogation of the common law which create liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed … . Hence, while section 7-210 expressly shifts tort liability to the abutting property owner for injuries proximately caused by the owner’s failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, it does not supersede pre-existing regulations such as 34 RCNY 2-07(b), which provides that “owners of covers or gratings on a street are responsible for monitoring the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending twelve inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware” (34 RCNY 2-07[b][1]…).  Roman v Bob’s Discount Furniture of NY LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02762, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

/ , ,

Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)

The Second Department determined plaintiffs, who were injured when assaulted by NYC firefighters in a restaurant, had made allegations against the city and the fire department which raised questions of fact about negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. The firefighters, including supervisors, had just come from a New York City Fire Department annual dinner held at another restaurant.  Apparently two firefighters (Reilly and Warnock) attacked the plaintiffs after a drink had been accidentally spilled on a firefighter. The court explained that the doctrine of respondeat superior would not apply because the firefighters were not acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the assault.  But the court determined the causes of action against the City defendants for negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention could go forward!

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment. Pursuant to this doctrine, the employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business'” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Where, however, an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, the actions cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment … . In instances where vicarious liability for an employee’s torts cannot be imposed upon an employer, a direct cause of action against the employer for its own conduct, be it negligent hiring, supervision, or other negligence, may still be maintained … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the City defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging vicarious liability. The City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the tortious conduct of Reilly and Warnock was not within the scope of their employment … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . However, as to the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, the City defendants did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that they did not know or have reason to know of Reilly’s or Warnock’s alleged propensity for assaultive conduct … . Furthermore, the City defendants failed to submit evidence demonstrating that any such alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs’ injuries … . Selmani City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02764, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

/ ,

Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty

The Second Department determined that the town code provisions cited by plaintiffs did not impose a duty upon property owners to prevent vegetation from obstructing the view of drivers on a public road:

A property owner has no common-law duty to prevent vegetation growing on its property from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway … . Although such a duty may be imposed by a specific regulatory provision …, the ordinances … defendants allegedly violated, Code of the Town of Clarkstown §§ 216-4 and 250-6, were not intended to protect motorists from the hazards of vegetation which obstruct views at intersections of streets and driveways … . Accordingly, alleged noncompliance with the subject ordinances may not give rise to tort liability… . Preux v Dennis, 2014 NY Slip Op 02763, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

/

No Allegation of Active Concealment of Defects on Part of Seller/Buyer Can Not Sue for Defects Discovered after the Closing Based Solely Upon Seller’s Silence

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the seller of property, the Second Department explained the doctrine of “caveat emptor.”  The complaint alleged the plaintiffs became aware of flooding problems and mechanical problems after the closing.

” New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment'” … . “If however, some conduct (i.e., more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises to the level of active concealment, a seller may have a duty to disclose information concerning the property” … . ” To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor'” … . Here, in opposition to the respondent’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondent engaged in conduct that would constitute active concealment. Mo v Rosen, 2014 NY Slip Op 02758, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

/

1/2 Inch Variation in Stair-Step Height (In Violation of Fire Safety Code) Established Negligence

The First Department determined plaintiff had established a case of negligence based upon a 1/2 inch height differential among stair steps where plaintiff fell:

Plaintiff’s expert supported her opinion that the stairway was defective “by nonconclusory reference to specific, currently applicable safety standards or practices” … . Section 5-2.2.2.4 of the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code [1994] requires that there can be no variation exceeding three sixteenths of an inch “in the depth of adjacent treads or in the height of adjacent risers and the tolerance between the largest and smallest tread cannot exceed ⅜.” Plaintiff’s expert identified the Life Safety Code Handbook as a published authoritative and nationally recognized accepted industry standard for safe staircase construction and maintenance in the field of architecture. When asked if plaintiff’s expert was correct in that regard, defendant’s expert replied “yes.” …  The trial court’s finding that the 1994 Life Safety Code is applicable because the stairs were renovated in 1996, when defendant constructed a new tile floor directly on top of an existing floor on the second floor landing, which created the height differential in the location where plaintiff lost her balance, is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. … Thus, plaintiff’s expert testimony that the one half inch differential caused plaintiff’s fall established a case of negligence against defendant. Rondin v Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02664, 4-17-15

 

/ , , ,

No Actionable Violations by Bank Re: Overdraft Charges/Overdraft Charges Are Not Interest

The First Department determined plaintiff had not stated causes of action against a bank based in part upon alleged violations of statements in a checking-account brochure issued by the bank.  The complaint challenged the method used by the bank to impose overdraft charges on plaintiff’s checking account, alleging breach of contract, violations of General Business Law 349 and usury.  With respect to the General Business Law and usuary causes of action, the court wrote:

To state a claim under General Business Law § 349, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has engaged in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . A ” deceptive act or practice'” is defined as “a representation or omission likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … * * *  Plaintiff makes no claim that the applicability of his overdraft protection was not disclosed to him. * * *

The third cause of action, alleging usury, was properly dismissed because, as found by the motion court, overdraft charges are not interest. “If an instrument provides that the creditor will receive additional payment in the event of a contingency beyond the borrower’s control, the contingent payment constitutes interest within the meaning of the usury statutes” … . Even assuming a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties, the contingency of an account overdraft would have been within plaintiff’s control … . Feld v Apple Bank for Sav, 2014 NY Slip Op 02662, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

/ ,

Temporary Restraining Order Prohibiting Broadcast About a Murder of Which Plaintiff Was Convicted Constituted Impermissible Prior Restraint of Speech

The Third Department determined the temporary restraining order granted by Supreme Court, which prohibited the broadcast of a movie about a murder of which plaintiff was convicted, constituted an impermissible prior restraint of free speech:

“A ‘prior restraint’ on speech is ‘a law, regulation or judicial order that suppresses speech . . . on the basis of the speech’s content and in advance of its actual expression'” … . It is well settled that “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights” … . As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them . . . beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable” … . Although the prohibition against prior restraint is not absolute, any restraint on speech comes with “a ‘heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity” … . Censorship in advance of publication will be constitutionally tolerated only upon “a showing on the record that such expression will immediately and irreparably create public injury” … .

Plaintiff has failed to show such immediate and irreparable public harm. “Romeo Killer: The Christopher Porco Story” purports to depict the events leading up to and surrounding plaintiff’s murder trial, a matter of significant public interest. Its broadcast would not create the type of imminent and irreversible injury to the public that would warrant the extraordinary remedy of prior restraint. Rather, any alleged harm or injury flowing from the content of the film would be limited to plaintiff alone. That portions of the movie may be fictionalized, dramatized or embellished does not constitute a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prior restraint enjoining its broadcast … . While judicial redress following publication is available if it is ultimately proven that defendant abused its rights of speech, it was constitutionally impermissible under these circumstances to forbid that speech prior to its actual expression… . Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02641, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

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