You are here: / Res Ipsa Loquitur Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Question...

Search Results

/

Res Ipsa Loquitur Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Question of Fact About Whether Handrail Which Came Loose Was In Exclusive Control of Defendant

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s res ipsa loquitur case of action.  Plaintiff was injured when a handrail came loose from the wall in her apartment building:

Supreme Court … erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant established as a matter of law that it did not have exclusive control of the handrail, i.e., one of the necessary conditions herein for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ….  We conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether the handrail was in the exclusive control of defendant, and thus that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion … .  …

“The exclusive control requirement . . . is that evidence must afford a rational basis for concluding that the cause of the accident was probably such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it . . . The purpose is simply to eliminate within reason all explanations for the injury other than defendant’s negligence” … .  Here, plaintiff established that access to the internal stairway is limited to the residents of the three units in the building and defendant’s maintenance staff …, and a former maintenance staff person testified that railings in other buildings had become loose and were tightened as needed.  We therefore conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact “that the cause of the accident was probably such that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with it”… . Herbst v Lakewood Shores Condominium Association, 1337, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

/

Restaurant Chair Collapsed: No Question of Fact About Constructive Notice of Condition of the Chair/Res Ipsa Loquitur Did Not Apply

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant restaurant owner.  A chair at the restaurant collapsed when plaintiff sat down.  The court determined the defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition of the chair and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply:

The duty of a property owner to inspect his or her property “is measured by a standard of reasonableness under the circumstances” … .  Here, defendant testified that she wipes down the chairs at the end of each day and that, “every month or so,” she performs a “major cleaning” of the restaurant, which includes an inspection of the chairs.  In the absence of any prior complaints, incidents, accidents, or any other circumstances that should have aroused defendant’s suspicion that the chairs were defective …, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the reasonableness of defendant’s inspection practices, and thus whether defendant had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the chair.

We reject plaintiffs’ alternative contention that notice to defendant was not required because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.  That doctrine “does not apply here because, inter alia, defendant was not in exclusive control of the instrumentality that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries,” i.e., the chair… . Catalano v Tanner, 1087, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

/ ,

Conversion Cause of Action Cannot Be Based Solely Upon Allegations of Breach of Contract

In a detailed decision construing contract language, the Fourth Department noted that the conversion cause of action should be dismissed because no tortious conduct over and above the failure to fulfill the contract was alleged:

“[I]t is well established that a cause of action to recover damages for conversion cannot be predicated on a mere breach of contract” … .  Because plaintiff “failed to show . . . that [defendant] engaged in tortious conduct separate and apart from [its alleged] failure to fulfill its contractual obligations,” the cause of action for conversion must be dismissed… . Lehr, Inc v T-Mobile USA Inc…, 1085, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

/

Strict Liability for Clean Up of Petroleum Spilled Between 1890 and 1935

The Fourth Department determined the current owners of land contaminated with petroleum between 1890 and 1935 were strictly liable for clean-up under the Navigation Law, despite intervening use of the land as a scrap yard:

We conclude that plaintiffs established their entitlement to a determination that defendants are contributing “dischargers” pursuant to Navigation Law § 172 (8) and thus are strictly liable under section 181 (1) for, inter alia, the cleanup and removal costs…, despite the fact that the parcels subsequently were the sites for various commercial operations that also may have contributed to the contamination of the properties, including a scrap yard.  …

Plaintiffs provided the affidavits of two experts explaining that samples taken from depths of 6 to 14 feet below the surface contained contaminants that are consistent with refinery operations and that, based upon the age and depths of the samples, could only have been caused by the refinery operations. One Flint St LLC… v Exxon Mobil Corporation…, 1281, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

/ , ,

Criteria for Review of Agency’s Condemnation of Land Explained/Failure to Consider Future Development of Land Did Not Constitute Improper Segmentation of Environmental Impact Review

The Fourth Department determined the condemnation of land by the Lockport Industrial Development Agency (LIDA) and the related State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review were properly done. The court determined that the failure to consider future development of the land did not amount to an improper segmentation of the SEQRA review process: The court explained its review powers in this context as follows:

It is well settled that the scope of our review of LIDA’s determination is “very limited” … .  We must “ ‘either confirm or reject [LIDA’s] determination and findings,’ and [our] review is confined to whether (1) the proceeding was constitutionally sound; (2) [LIDA] had the requisite authority; (3) its determination complied with SEQRA and EDPL article 2; and (4) the acquisition will serve a public use” (id.; see EDPL 207 [C]).  “The burden is on the party challenging the condemnation to establish that the determination ‘was without foundation and baseless’ . . . Thus, ‘[i]f an adequate basis for a determination is shown and the objector cannot show that the determination was without foundation, the [condemnor’s] determination should be confirmed’… . * * *

Although LIDA considered only the impact of the acquisition and not the impact of potential development, we reject [the] contention that LIDA thereby improperly segmented the SEQRA review process (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag]).  Although LIDA intends to sell the property to a potential developer, there was no identified purchaser or specific plan for development at the time the SEQRA review was conducted …, and thus we conclude that under these facts the acquisition is not a “separate part[] ‘of a set of activities or steps’ in a single action or project”… . Matter of GM Components Holdings LLC v Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency, 1275, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

/

Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Construction of Shopping Mall/No Showing of Unique Environmental Injury

The Second Department determined that members of a “Neighborhood Preservation Coalition” did not have standing to challenge the construction of a shopping mall.  The petitioners lived approximately 1300 to 2000 feet away from the proposed construction site:

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that they lacked standing. ” [I]n land use matters . . . the plaintiff[s], for standing purposes, must show that [they] would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at …large'” … . Here, the individual petitioners, none of whom allege that the site of the proposed mall is visible from their homes, do not live close enough to the site to be afforded a presumption of injury-in-fact based on proximity alone … . Further, the individual petitioners’ allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the construction of the proposed mall would cause them to suffer an environmental injury different from that of members of the public at large, who use Fairway Drive for access, inter alia, to a golf course… . Matter of Riverhead Neighborhood Preserv Coalition Inc v Town of Riverhead Town Bd, 2013 NY Slip Op 08640, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

No Rigid Formula for a Constructive Trust

The Second Department determined that a petition seeking to impose a constructive trust on an IRA properly survived a motion for summary judgment. The petitioners are the children of James (now deceased) and the former beneficiaries of James’ Oppenheiner Funds IRA.  The respondent, Holbrook, is the executor of the estate of James’ second wife (the decedent) and the current beneficiary of the Oppenheimer IRA.  The petitioners alleged that, in return for James’ naming the decedent the beneficiary of the Oppenheimer IRA, the decedent promised to sign a consent form making petitioners the beneficiaries of another IRA.  The petitioners alleged that, when presented with the consent form, the decedent refused to sign it:

…[T]he petition seeking to impose a constructive trust adequately states a cause of action to impose a constructive trust on the proceeds of the Oppenheimer Funds IRA. “The usual elements of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relation[ship], (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon and (4) unjust enrichment'” … . However, these factors “are not an unyielding formula which limits a court’s freedom to fashion this equitable remedy’ and the requirements are not to be rigidly applied” … . Thus, a constructive trust “will be erected whenever necessary to satisfy the demands of justice” … .

Here, the marital relationship between James and the decedent provides the necessary confidential relationship …. . The petitioners have sufficiently alleged a promise by the decedent, a change in beneficiary of the Oppenheimer Funds IRA to the decedent in reliance upon that promise, and the decedent’s, and then Holbrook’s, unjust enrichment therefrom. Contrary to Holbrook’s contention, the petitioners possessed a sufficient interest as the previously designated beneficiaries of the Oppenheimer Funds IRA to seek to impose a constructive trust on the proceeds … . Matter of Harold, 2013 NYSlip Op 08629, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/ ,

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

 

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