You are here: / PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S FINGER WAS CAUGHT IN A DOOR SHUT BY ANOTHER STUDENT...

Search Results

/ ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S FINGER WAS CAUGHT IN A DOOR SHUT BY ANOTHER STUDENT ACTING AS A LUNCH MONITOR; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PROVIDED ADEQUATE SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-student’s negligent supervision action against the Department of Education (DOE) should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s finger was caught in a door as the door was shut by another student who was acting as a lunch monitor. Plaintiff and other students banged on the door to get someone to open it, but its wasn’t opened for three minutes. The tip of plaintiff’s finger was severed:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the DOE adequately supervised the infant plaintiff … , or that its alleged lack of adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Significantly, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated that there was no adult monitoring the area where the accident took place and that, at the time of the accident, an assistant principal in the cafeteria was in the midst of calling for more assistance. Among the triable issues of fact presented by the defendants’ submissions were whether there was an appropriate level of supervision for the seventh-grade students under the circumstances … , and whether the school played a role in empowering or training the student lunch monitor with respect to closing the door to the kitchen.

Although there are certain accidents that occur in such a short span of time “that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented [them and] any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury” … , this is not one of those cases, especially in light of the fact that the infant plaintiff’s finger remained pinched by the closed door for approximately three minutes while he and his fellow students banged on the door. Fleming v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 05714, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: The accident–plaintiff-student’s finger was caught (for three minutes) in a door shut by another student who was acting as a lunch monitor–raised a question whether the level of supervision by the school was adequate.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS FOOT SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL DID NOT PRESENT A NONEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OR TRIGGER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this rear-end collision case was entitled to summary judgment. Defendant’s allegation his foot slipped off the brake pedal because of rocks and pebbles under the floor mat did not present a nonnegligent explanation for striking plaintiff’s stopped vehicle:

[Defendant’s] assertion that he tried to apply the brakes on his vehicle to avoid a collision with the plaintiff’s vehicle, but his foot slipped off the brake pedal due to rocks and pebbles under the floor mat, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the accident, or whether the emergency doctrine applied … . Donnellan v LaMarche, 2023 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Here defendant struck the rear of plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. Defendant’s explanation that his foot slipped off the brake pedal was not enough to raise a question of fact about either a nonnegligent explanation or the applicability of the emergency doctrine.

 

/ ,

THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE TO BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE WHEN A PATRON WAS BITTEN BY A DOG IN THE WAITING ROOM DID NOT EXTEND TO A RESTAURANT OWNER WHO ALLOWS PATRONS TO BRING THEIR LEASHED DOGS TO THE RESTAURANT; THE STRICT LIABILITY “NOTICE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES” STANDARD APPLIED TO THE RESTAURANT OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, reversing Supreme Court, determined the strict liability “notice-of-vicious-propensity” requirement applied to a restaurant which allowed patrons to bring their leashed dogs. Here the infant plaintiff was bitten by a patron’s dog. The negligence cause of action was not dismissed by Supreme Court pursuant to a recent Court of Appeals decision which held that a veterinarian’s office could be sued in negligence by a patron bitten by another patron’s dog. The Second Department refused to extend the Court of Appeals ruling re: a veterinarian to a restaurant owner:

On this appeal, we are presented with the opportunity to examine the extent to which the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC (35 NY3d 541), serves to alter the standard applied in actions to recover damages for personal injuries caused by domesticated animals. Specifically, we address those actions commenced against individuals other than the animal’s owner. In Hewitt, the Court of Appeals engaged in an intensely fact-specific inquiry wherein it determined that the vicious propensities notice requirement is not necessary in a negligence action against a veterinary practice or other such places with “specialized knowledge relating to animal behavior” (id. at 548). We conclude that the holding of Hewitt, in line with the jurisprudence of this area of law, does not serve to carve out a path for ordinary negligence actions against all premises owners, in contravention of the vicious propensities notice requirement. Cantore v Costantine, 2023 NY Slip Op 05708, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Although the Court of Appeals recently held standard negligence principles could be applied to a dog bite in a veterinarian’s office, here the strict liability “notice of vicious propensities” requirement applied to a restaurant owner who allows patrons to bring their leashed dogs into the restaurant.

 

/ ,

THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT; HERE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY BUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE REMAINED VIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist should have been awarded summary judgment in this vehicle-bicycle accident case, but defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense should not have been dismissed:

On a motion for summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s liability, a plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative negligence to establish his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Although a plaintiff is not required to establish his or her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability … , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence … . “In general, a motorist is required to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists, to sound the vehicle’s horn when a reasonably prudent person would do so in order to warn a bicyclist of danger, and to operate the vehicle with reasonable care to avoid colliding with anyone on the road. A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself in a dangerous position” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs … failed to establish, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause … . Based upon the evidence presented by the plaintiffs in support of their motion, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the injured plaintiff was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout, whether he should have slowed down earlier given the traffic conditions, and whether he contributed to the happening of the accident … . Bornsztejn v Zito, 2023 NY Slip Op 05706, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Here the defendant driver failed to see was should have been seen, so the plaintiff bicyclist was entitled to summary judgment on liability. However there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent, so the comparative negligence affirmative defense remained viable on the issue of damages.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OWED PLAINITFF A DUTY OF CARE, A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the summary judgment motion by one of plaintiff’s treating physicians was properly granted in this medical malpractice case. Neither of plaintiff’s experts was qualified to assess the defendant medical oncologist’s (Hindenberg’s) care of plaintiff. Therefore the expert affidavits did not demonstrate defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (Petillo), which is a question of law for the court:

… [I]n order to reach any discussion[s] about deviation from accepted medical practice, it is necessary first to establish the existence of a duty”… . “‘Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient'” … . “The existence and scope of a physician’s duty of care is a question of law to be determined by the court” … . * * *

Petillo’s internal medicine and infectious disease expert failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist … . The expert did not claim to have any skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology. While the expert gave an opinion that Hindenburg departed from the standards of care applicable to internal medicine, Petillo was not referred to Hindenburg as an internist and Hindenburg did not treat Petillo as an internist, rendering the standard of care for an internist inapplicable.

Petillo’s surgical oncologist expert also failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist. This expert, a board-certified surgeon who practices in the field of surgical oncology, a specialty distinct from medical oncology, failed to establish that he had the skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology sufficient to provide a foundation to opine on the clinical standard of care and departures of a medical oncologist. Abruzzi v Maller, 2023 NY Slip Op 05704, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Before an expert can offer an admissible opinion on the care provided by a doctor in a medical malpractice case, the expert must demonstrate he or she is qualified to assess the care provided by the defendant doctor, here a medical oncologist. The failure to demonstrate the necessary qualifications to assess the care provided by the defendant specialist, constituted the failure to demonstrate the defendant doctor owed a duty to the plaintiff, a question of law for the court.

 

/ , , , ,

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL AND DEMONSTRATED THE OFFICERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD WHEN PURSUING PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST, WHO CRASHED AND WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED; THERE WAS NO INDICATION FURTHER DISCOVERY WOULD UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town and police–officer defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this motorcycle-accident case. The plaintiff motorcyclist (Ronnie) was speeding when the defendant officers attempted to follow him with their emergency lights on. Both officers pulled back because of the plaintiff’s speed, losing sight of plaintiff. The officers came upon plaintiff in the woods after he had crashed. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants had demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment but found that the summary judgment motion was premature and should await further discovery. The Second Department held the motion was not premature because there was no indication additional evidence would be uncovered:

… [T]he defendants’ motion was not premature. The plaintiff “failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the [defendants]” … . Here, the officers directly involved in the attempt to stop Ronnie provided sworn affidavits, which were unequivocal and consistent with the other evidence in the case. There is no basis to conclude that depositions or other discovery would render a different account of the accident. The plaintiff’s mere hope or speculation that discovery would render evidence sufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion was not a sufficient basis to deny the motion … . Rojas v Town of Tuxedo, 2023 NY Slip Op 05751, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Where the evidence supports summary judgment and there is no indication further discovery will uncover additional evidence, the summary judgment motion should not be denied as “premature.”

 

/ ,

RESPONDENT, THE CHILDREN’S UNCLE WHO LIVED WITH THE CHILDREN’S FAMILY, WAS A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined respondent, the children’s uncle who lived with the children’s family, was a person legally responsible for the children who had sexually abused the children:

“Determining whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a discretionary, fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the particular circumstances of each case. Factors such as the frequency and nature of the contact between the child and respondent, the nature and extent of the control exercised by the respondent over the child’s environment, the duration of the respondent’s contact with the child, and the respondent’s relationship to the child’s parent(s) are some of the variables which should be considered and weighed by a court” … . These factors are not exhaustive, “but merely illustrate some of the salient considerations in making an appropriate determination” … . * * *

… [T]he respondent, the paternal uncle of Yasmin P. and Hilary P., continually resided in the same apartment with Yasmin P. and Hilary P. for approximately five years. In addition, the respondent’s brother testified during the fact-finding hearing that the respondent told him that the respondent considered both the respondent’s family and the respondent’s brother’s family, including Yasmin P. and Hilary P., to be one big family (see Family Ct Act § 1012[g] …). The respondent also exercised control over Yasmin P.’s and Hilary P.’s environment during the relevant period by freely accessing their bedroom and the common areas of the apartment, including when Yasmin P. and Hilary P. were home and their parents were away at work or running errands, and by controlling Yasmin P. with commands or the promise of gifts. Accordingly, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the respondent was a person legally responsible for Yasmin P. and Hilary P. Matter of Marjorie P. (Gerardo M. P.), 2023 NY Slip Op 05734, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Here the children’s uncle, who lived with the children’s family, should have been deemed a person legally responsible for the children in this sexual abuse proceeding.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN AN “ALTERING” ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 AND THE ACCIDENT–AN OBJECT FALLING DOWN A MANHOLE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF–WAS ELEVATION-RELATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was engaged in work covered by Labor Law 240 and the accident–an object falling down a manhole and striking plaintiff–was elevation-related:

Plaintiff established that he was engaged in an “altering” activity as enumerated by Labor Law § 240(1). … [P]laintiff’s work involved more than “feeding cable through a preexisting hole.” Rather, it was part of a much larger, multi-worker project to install a fiber optic network through a 20-manhole structure where none had previously existed, with the ultimate goal of installing the cables into the school buildings, which would necessarily require drilling holes into the foundation of the school buildings in order to reach the communications room … . …

… [T]he vacuum that fell from ground level into the manhole and struck plaintiff on the head posed the type of elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Keilitz v Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05661, First Dept 11-9-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was installing a fiber optic network and was struck by an object which fell down the manhole he was in. He was engaged in “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law 240. The accident was elevation-related within the meaning of Labor Law 240. He was entitled to summary judgment.

 

/ ,

THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD DIED BEFORE SHE AND PETITIONER WERE TO BE MARRIED; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER ARGUED PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY AND FAMILY COURT AGREED; HOWEVER STANDING CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY EXTRAORDINAY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined standing in a custody matter can be proven by extraordinary circumstances and sent the matter back for a ruling. The child’s mother died unexpectedly before she and petitioner were to be married. The petition was denied for lack of standing. However, standing can be proven by extraordinary circumstance which may be demonstrated here:

As a prerequisite to seeking custody or visitation with a child, a party must establish standing. The party may establish standing (1) as a parent pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70; (2) as a sibling for visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 71; (3) as a grandparent for visitation or custody pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72; or (4) by showing extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (40 NY2d 543 [1976]) … . * * *

Family Court erred in dismissing petitioner’s custody and visitation petitions without permitting petitioner the opportunity to present evidence supporting her argument that she had standing based on extraordinary circumstances. Indeed, the Referee stated on the record during the hearing that she agreed with the biological father’s position that petitioner could only present extraordinary circumstances evidence after she established that she had standing. This is an error of law, as extraordinary circumstances is one of several bases for standing to seek custody and visitation.

Extraordinary circumstances may be found where there has been “a judicial finding of surrender, abandonment, unfitness, persistent neglect, unfortunate or involuntary extended disruption of custody, or other equivalent but rare extraordinary circumstance which would drastically affect the welfare of the child” … . Matter of Lashawn K. v Administration for Children’s Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 05662, First Dept 11-9-23

Practice Point: Standing to bring a custody petition may be demonstrated by extraordinary circumstances. Here the biological mother died unexpectedly before she and petitioner were to be married. The biological father successfully argued petitioner did not have standing. The matter was sent back for Family Court for a ruling on whether petitioner demonstrated standing based upon extraordinary circumstances.

 

/

THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF DEFENDANT’S OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, eliminating the “consent to search” probation condition, determined the condition was not supported by the nature of defendant’s offense:

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment … convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a definite term of incarceration of one day, to be followed by a term of probation, which included as a condition Condition No. 28, requiring the defendant to consent to a search by a probation officer or a probation officer and his or her agent of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search. * * *

… [T]he defendant was a first-time offender and was not armed with a weapon at the time he committed the offense. Additionally, the defendant has not been assessed as being in need of alcohol or substance abuse treatment. Under the circumstances, the consent to search condition of probation was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense, and was not, therefore, reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life …. . People v Mensah, 2023 NY Slip Op 05622, Second Dept 11-8-22

Practice Point: Here the nature of defendant’s offense (assault second), coupled the lack of evidence that defendant abused drugs or alcohol, failed to support the “consent to search” probation condition.

 

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