You are here: / No Special Duty Owed to Claimant/County Clerk Cannot Be Sued For Failure...

Search Results

/ ,

No Special Duty Owed to Claimant/County Clerk Cannot Be Sued For Failure to Properly Docket a Judgment

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Angiolillo, the Second Department determined that the County Clerk could not be sued by a judgment debtor based on the clerk’s failure to properly docket a judgment.  The court held that no special duty of care was owed by the municipality to the claimant, and therefore it was unnecessary to address the “sovereign immunity” and “discretionary” versus “ministerial” issues:

A “special duty” is “a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,” and is “born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” (Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 189, 198-199; see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d at 199).

“A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” (Pelaez v Seide, 2 NY3d at 199-200; see McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d at 199). * * *

To satisfy the first and second prerequisites, the claimant must be “one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted,” and it must be shown that “recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose” of the governing statutes … . A determination that these two prerequisites are met here would require us to conclude that the class for whose particular benefit the governing statutes were enacted comprises judgment creditors, and that the legislative purpose of the statutory scheme was to make judgment creditors whole for their losses. This is simply not the case. * * *

In any event, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the third one has not. “[T]he most critical inquiry in determining whether to recognize a private cause of action where one is not expressly provided is whether such action would be consistent with the over-all legislative scheme” … . A private right of action for a new type of claim should not be judicially recognized by implication “where the statutes in question already contain[ ] substantial enforcement mechanisms, indicating that the Legislature considered how best to effectuate its intent and provided the avenues for relief it deemed warranted” … . The judgment lien created by CPLR 5018 and 5203 is simply one weapon in the “arsenal of enforcement mechanisms under CPLR article 52” provided to judgment creditors… .  Flagstar Bank FSB v State of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 08592, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

Homeowner Did Not Create Dangerous Condition (Wet Leaves on a Slope)/Condition Was Open and Obvious (No Duty to Warn)

The Third Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendants homeowners in a slip and fall case.  Plaintiff, who was following the homeowner as they walked around the house counting windows, slipped on a slope adjacent to the house which was covered with wet leaves.  The court determined defendants did not create the hazardous condition and had no duty to warn of the condition:

“Generally, landowners both owe a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining their property in a reasonably safe condition and have a duty to warn of a latent, dangerous condition of which the landowner is or should be aware” … . However, the landowner’s duty to warn “does not extend to open and obvious conditions that are natural geographic phenomena which can readily be observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses” … .  As the movants, defendants were required to “make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … .

Defendants satisfied their threshold burden, as the moving parties, by establishing … that they exercised reasonable care by maintaining the premises year round and in a seasonally appropriate manner, and that they did not create the condition, which occurred as a result of natural seasonal changes.  Notably, plaintiff’s fall did not occur on a pathway, walkway or driveway but, rather, on the surface of the ground along the side of the house on the unaltered natural contour of the land in an area that was exposed to the elements; it was not foreseeable that someone would traverse on this obviously slippery terrain so as to impose an obligation on the owners to take precautions such as clearing the ground area of leaves and debris … .

Moreover, defendants’ proof established that the slippery condition of the leaf and debris-covered natural, unimproved downward slope was an open and obvious hazard, as opposed to a latent or concealed one, in that the danger “could not be overlooked by any observer reasonably using his or her ordinary senses”…. . Freeese v Bedford, 516863, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

/ ,

No Constructive Notice of Peeling Paint in Lead-Paint Exposure Cases

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to defendants in a lead-paint exposure case.  Plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the defendants were aware of peeling paint in the apartment:

To raise a triable issue of constructive notice, plaintiff was required to show “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment. Plaintiff failed to make that showing with respect to the Chapman factor requiring defendants’ awareness that paint was peeling in the apartment.  Cunningham v Keehfus, 516733, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

The Third Department affirmed the same result in another lead-paint exposure case:

Here, defendant acknowledged that he knew that the building was old, was aware that young children lived in the basement apartment, had the right to enter the apartment to make repairs, and did so.  However, he testified that he “didn’t know anything about lead poisoning” before the October 1990 inspection, did not remember peeling or chipping paint in the apartment and did not know that lead hazards had twice been identified in the building before he purchased it.   This testimony was sufficient to establish on a prima facie basis that defendant did not have constructive notice of a lead hazard before October 1990, shifting the burden to plaintiff to establish triable issues of fact… .

…[T]he record includes no evidence that the prior owner told defendant about the building’s previous lead problems or that defendant otherwise had an opportunity to learn about them; the mere fact that they were acquainted does not give rise to a triable issue of fact. Nor was it shown that defendant – who testified that his education and reading skills were limited – was sophisticated in the ownership and maintenance of rental properties or otherwise experienced in areas that should have familiarized him with lead poisoning issues … Accordingly, plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of a lead hazard before the October 1990 inspection… . Williams v Thomas, 516741, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

Defendant Shoveled Sidewalk and Snow Piled on Either Side Melted/Question of Fact Whether Defendant Created the Dangerous Condition Resulting from Subsequent Freezing of Melted Snow

The Second Department determined a question of fact existed about whether defendant created the hazardous condition (ice on a sidewalk) which caused plaintiff to fall.  Defendant testified she shoveled the sidewalk which left one-foot high piles of snow on either side of the sidewalk.  She also testified that she observed the piles of snow melting.  The temperature subsequently fell below freezing and was below freezing at the time of the accident:

The defendant, as the property owner, failed to establish as a matter of law that her snow removal activities did not create the allegedly hazardous icy condition which resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the ice upon which the plaintiff slipped was formed when snow piles created by the defendant’s snow removal efforts melted and refroze … . Viera v Rymdzionek, 2013 NY Slip Op 08615, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/ ,

Rear-End Collision: No Rational Process By Which Jury Could Have Found Plaintiff Negligent

The Second Department determined there was no rational process by which the jury could have found the plaintiff negligent in a rear-end collision case.  Plaintiff’s CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted. The plaintiff was stopped to allow a pedestrian, who had run in front of the vehicle, to cross.  The defendant acknowledged that he took his eyes off the road briefly to look at the pedestrians and then struck the rear of plaintiff’s car:

” A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision'” … . Moreover, although the issue of comparative fault generally presents a question of fact …, that issue should be submitted to a jury “only where there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the frontmost driver also operated his or her vehicle in a negligent manner” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is no rational process by which the jury could find that the defendant had a nonnegligent explanation for the accident, or that the plaintiff was, to any extent, at fault in the happening of the accident. Clarke v Phillps, 2013 NY Slip Op 08585, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

“Wheel Stop” in Parking Lot Does Not Present an Unreasonable Risk of Harm

In this slip and fall case, the Second Department determined that a “wheel stop” or concrete divider in a parking lot is an open and obvious condition that does not present an unreasonable risk of harm:

While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner for its patrons …, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous … . Generally “[a] wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm” … . Bellini v Gypsy Magic Enters Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 08581, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

Labor Law 241(6) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Power Washing Was Integral to the Painting Process and Was Not “Routine Maintenance”

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 241(6) action should not have been dismissed because the work plaintiff was doing, power-washing a building in preparation for painting, was not “routine maintenance,” but rather was an integral part of the painting process:

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since they did not demonstrate that the plaintiff, who was injured while power washing buildings in preparation for painting them, was not engaged in a specifically enumerated activity under 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13). Painting is an activity enumerated under that provision …, and the power washing performed here … was in preparation for, and a contractual part of, the painting work. Accordingly, the power washing did not constitute “routine maintenance” excluded from the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6), but rather, constituted surface preparation, an integral part of the painting process contemplated by the parties.  Dixson v Waterways at Bay Pointe Home Owners Assn Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 08591, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/ , , , ,

Imprisonment and Prosecution Based Upon the Violation of an Administratively Imposed Period of Post Release Supervision Gave Rise to Valid False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the State

In a lengthy and thorough opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined that the claimant, who was imprisoned and prosecuted based upon an administratively imposed “post release supervision” (PRS) violation, was entitled to summary judgment on his false imprisonment cause of action and had stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  The claimant was held in custody and prosecuted after the Court of Appeals had ruled that only the sentencing court can impose a term of post release supervision (Garner v NYS Dept of Correctional Services, 10 NY3d 358 [2008]):

…[C]aimant sufficiently alleged that his confinement was not privileged and it was defendant’s burden to establish that its confinement of claimant after Garner was privileged; defendant failed in the Court of Claims to produce a Division of Parole arrest warrant or a court order so as to demonstrate their validity or that the arrest or confinement of claimant was privileged … .   Further, to clarify, claimant does not challenge his arrest prior to Garner but, rather, premises his claims on his continued detention and reincarceration – after Garner – for a parole violation based upon an administrativelyimposed PRS term that Garner clearly held was invalid, i.e., he raises a claim for false imprisonment and not for false arrest. * * *

…[D]efendant does not have immunity for the actions of its parole officials.  To be sure, inherently discretionary parole decisions of government officials have been recognized to be quasi-judicial decisions entitled to absolute immunity … .  “Where, however, the official has stepped outside the scope of his [or her] authority and acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or without a colorable claim of authority, there is plainly no entitlement to absolute immunity, even if the underlying acts are . . . quasi-judicial in nature” … .  That is, “[t]here is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter.  The former is privileged, the latter is not”… . * * *

We similarly conclude that claimant stated a cause of action for malicious prosecution.  To make out a claim for malicious prosecution, claimant must establish: “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the [claimant], (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” …. .  … On the second prong, claimant need not “demonstrate innocence” of the parole violation in order to satisfy that favorable termination prong; rather, claimant can satisfy it by showing that “there can be no further prosecution of the [alleged parole violation]” … .  We believe it self evident, under the facts here and despite the lack of state law on point, that defendant could not, after Sparber and Garner, ever lawfully prosecute claimant on a parole violation that occurred before those decisions, where the PRS in effect at the time of the alleged violation was imposed by DOCS and was, as such, a nullity… Moulton v State of New York, 515096, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

“Concerted Action Liability” Causes of Action Dismissed/No Evidence Media Defendants Conspired with the Police to Use Excessive Force During Filmed Execution of Search Warrant

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of causes of action against media defendants who filmed the execution of a search warrant by the police.  Plaintiff was shot during the incident.  Plaintiff alleged that the media defendants (including Yates and HBO) had conspired with the police to use excessive force to maximize the entertainment value:

A theory of “[c]oncerted action liability rests upon the principle that [a]ll those who, in pursuance of a common plan or design to commit a tortious act, actively take part in it, or further it by cooperation or request, or who lend aid or encouragement to the wrongdoer, or ratify and adopt his acts done for their benefit, are equally liable with him [or her]'” … . As stated in our prior decision in this action, the liability of HBO and Yates under a concerted action theory “cannot stem from the mere act of filming the NYPD’s use of excessive force” … . Such liability must be predicated on proof that HBO and Yates “formed a common plan with the NYPD to use excessive force in the execution of the warrant, and that such plan created an unreasonable danger to persons such as the plaintiff and was a proximate cause of her injuries” … .

Here, Yates and HBO established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that they did not participate, either directly or indirectly, in a common plan or design to commit the allegedly tortious act that caused the plaintiff’s injuries… . Rodriguez v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 08609, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

Insurance Company’s Failure to Submit Second Request for Verification of No-Fault Claim Precluded Tolling of 30-Day Payment Period

The Second Department determined that defendant insurance company’s failure to issue a second request for verification to the hospital which had submitted a no-fault claim precluded the insurance company from asserting the hospital’s failure to reply to the request for verification as a basis for not paying the claim within 30 days:

Upon the hospital’s failure to timely comply with the defendant’s initial request for verification within “30 calendar days after the original request [for verification]” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]), the defendant was under a regulatory duty to issue a second request for verification within 10 days after the expiration of that 30-day period (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]…). In the absence of any such second request for verification, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the 30-day period within which it had to pay, deny, or request verification of the claim had been extended. The defendant “failed to submit any evidence that it mailed a second or follow-up request for verification at the end of the 30-day period subsequent to [its] mailing [of] the initial request for verification”… . Westchester Med Ctr v Allstate Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 08616, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

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