You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S OWN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE CLEANED THE AREA WHERE HE STEPPED ON A NAIL PROVED DEFENDANT DID NOT NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE NAIL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the nail plaintiff stepped on requiring dismissal of the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. The twist here is plaintiff’s own deposition testimony that he had cleaned the area proved defendant’s lack of constructive notice:

Plaintiff expressly based his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims on a theory that he was injured when he stepped on a nail and that his injuries therefore arose from the condition of the workplace. Thus, defendant was required to establish prima facie that it neither caused or created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it … . Defendant sustained that burden by submitting plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he had swept the area before his lunch break, that everything was where he had left it and the floor was still clean when he returned from his lunch break, and that he never noticed the nail before the accident, which occurred after plaintiff’s lunch break … . Zyskowski v Chelsea-Warren Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02860, First Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Proof the area where plaintiff stepped on a nail was cleaned and inspected shortly before the injury demonstrated defendant did not have constructive notice of the presence of the nail, requiring dismissal of the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. The facts here are unusual in that it was plaintiff’s own testimony that he cleaned and inspected the area shortly before he stepped on the nail and did not notice the nail which proved defendant lacked constructive notice.

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff slipped and fell because of the condition of the floor, and not because of the actions of an animal, a cow which plaintiff was walking back to her stall when both he and the cow fell:

The plaintiff, who was working as a farrier, went to the defendant Bobby Wickham’s farm to service his cows. The cement area that the plaintiff had to traverse to transport each cow to and from her stall allegedly was covered with feces and urine. When the plaintiff complained to Wickham that the floor was very slippery, Wickham allegedly stated that he did not have sand to put down on the ground. The plaintiff serviced six or seven cows without incident. While he was working, the plaintiff saw cows slip on the floor. After servicing the cow at issue, the plaintiff was walking the cow back to her stall when he slipped and fell on the floor. The cow then fell on top of the plaintiff’s right foot.

… Wickham moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, contending that the sole means of recovery of damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal was upon a theory of strict liability, whereby the plaintiff must establish that the domestic animal had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the domestic animal’s vicious propensities, which the plaintiff did not allege here. …

* * * The evidence submitted raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell due to the condition of the floor and whether the cow’s subsequent contact with the plaintiff was causally related to the condition of the floor. Gomez v Wickham, 2025 NY Slip Op 02760, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Just because a plaintiff’s injuries are caused by an animal, here a cow falling on plaintiff, does not require that plaintiff’s lawsuit be brought under animal law (strict liability based on the animal’s vicious propensities). Plaintiff successfully alleged, under a negligence theory, that both he and the cow fell because of the slippery condition of the floor.

 

, ,

THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AND SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH RUNS FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR; HERE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PREIMPACT TERROR RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FOR THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the application to deem a notice of claim timely served for the conscious pain and suffering and preimpact terror causes of action in this pedestrian-bus-accident wrongful-death case should not have been granted. General Municipal Law 50-e provides that a notice of claim alleging wrongful death is timely filed and served within 90 days of the appointment of an administrator; that requirement was met here. The notice of claim was therefore timely for the wrongful death cause of action. However the wrongful-death notice-of-claim provision in General Municipal Law 50-e does not apply to the conscious pain and suffering and preimpact terror causes of action. The Second Department held that the notice of claim should have been rejected as untimely for those two causes of action:

Here, [defendant] NYCTA [New York City Transit Authority] did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims of conscious pain and suffering or preimpact terror within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … . “As a general rule, knowledge of an accident or occurrence by a municipality’s police or fire department cannot be imputed to another public or municipal corporation” … . Furthermore, the case file did not indicate that anyone associated with NYCTA acquired actual knowledge of essential facts constituting the subject claims.

As to the other relevant factors, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim … . The petitioner also failed to meet her initial burden of presenting “some evidence or plausible argument” … to support a finding that NYCTA will not be substantially prejudiced by the approximate six-month delay from the expiration of the 90-day statutory period until the commencement of this proceeding … . Matter of Egalite v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02773, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: A notice of claim for wrongful death is timely filed and served within 90 days of the appointment of an administrator pursuant to General Municipal Law 50-e (a) (1). However, that statutory provision does not apply to causes of action for conscious pain and suffering and preimpact terror. Notices of claim for those causes of action must be filed and served within 90 days of the accident.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action did not address all the proximate-cause issues railed by defendant’s expert, specifically the plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up visited after being treated in the emergency room at Elmhurst Hospital (the defendant). Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

At Elmhurst, the injured plaintiff’s forearm was X-rayed, and his wound was cleaned, sutured, and dressed. Later that same day, the injured plaintiff was discharged and instructed to return in two days for a follow-up appointment. The injured plaintiff did not return for the follow-up appointment but instead followed up with several physicians who were not associated with the defendant. The injured plaintiff allegedly required surgery later to repair several tendons in his forearm. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant negligently failed to properly diagnose and treat the injured plaintiff’s injuries during the initial emergency department visit at Elmhurst. * * *

… [T]he defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting … an affirmation of an expert physician, who opined that the physicians and employees of the defendant did not depart from the applicable standard of care and that any alleged departures were not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding proximate cause. The opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert regarding proximate cause failed to address specific assertions made by the defendant’s expert regarding, among other things, the implications of the injured plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up appointment as instructed … . Torres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02806, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: In this med mal action, the defense expert’s affirmation submitted with defendant’s motion for summary judgment raised proximate-cause issues that were not addressed by plaintiffs’ expert. Therefore, defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant surgeon was not entitled to summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. The defendant’s expert affidavit did not address specific allegations of negligence asserted by plaintiffs:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish .. that Ashraf [defendant] did not depart from the applicable standard of care in treating the injured plaintiff or that any such departure did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s injuries. An expert affidavit of Ashraf submitted by the defendants in support of their motion failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted by the plaintiffs, including whether Ashraf departed from the applicable standard of care in placing a 14-millimeter polyethylene component during the September 2016 surgery, as opposed to a smaller size, and whether such departure was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . Sanchez v Ashraf, 2025 NY Slip Op 02803, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice action is dependent upon the defense expert’s affidavit. If the affidavit fails to address specific allegations of negligence made by the the plaintiff, summary judgment is not warranted. This is a fairly common ground for reversal.

 

 

, ,

THE PORT AUTHORITY DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BY SUICIDE; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT CLIMBED OVER A FOUR-FOOT-TALL PEDESTRIAN RAILING AND JUMPED OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, over a dissent, affirming summary judgment dismissing the complaint, determined the Port Authority was not liable for the plaintiff’s decedent’s death by suicide.  Plaintiff’s decedent climbed over the four-foot-tall pedestrian railing and jumped off the George Washington Bridge (GWB). Plaintiff alleged the Port Authority was negligent in failing to install suicide prevention barriers along the pedestrian walkways:

In this action to recover damages for wrongful death, plaintiff seeks to hold defendant the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey liable for the death of the decedent, who died by suicide after jumping off the George Washington Bridge (GWB). To fully capture the nature of this appeal, however, it is pertinent to first discuss that the issue here is not whether the Port Authority’s alleged negligence arose out of the performance of a governmental rather than a proprietary function; this Court has already determined that the Port Authority, as owner of the GWB, was acting in a proprietary capacity at the time this claim arose and therefore that the ordinary rules of negligence apply. In the appeal now presented to us, the Port Authority’s expert engineer opines that the engineering concerns associated with modifying the 100-year-old bridge justified the steps taken and the interim measures implemented, but also opines that reasonable engineering judgment delayed the implementation of the safety mechanism that plaintiff contends would have ultimately prevented the decedent’s death by suicide. We therefore consider whether, given the record presented, the Port Authority has established its prima facie burden under ordinary rules of negligence. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Port Authority established that the pedestrian walkways on the bridge were safe for the public at large, and the steps taken, including additional interim measures implemented prior to this incident to help individuals who, like the decedent, were suffering from suicidal ideations, were reasonable in light of the complexity and size of the bridge. Donaldson v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2025 NY Slip Op 02719, First Dept 5-6-25

 

, ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A RAISED MANHOLE COVER, EXPOSED WHEN THE ROAD SURFACE AROUND THE MANHOLE WAS MILLED IN PREPARATION FOR REPAVING, CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY THE CITY AND WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint, determined there were questions of fact whether the raised manhole cover constituted a dangerous condition, and whether the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car which struck a raised manhole cover. In preparation for repaving, the existing road surface was milled or scarified such that the manhole covers extended above the surface of the road. Although asphalt was placed around the manhole (called ramping) so that the wheels on one side of a vehicle could pass over it, here the wheels on both sides of the manhole were on the milled surface and undercarriage of the car apparently struck it, causing the windshield to crack and the air bags to deploy:

[Defendant’s witness] could not say whether that ramping made it safe [for a vehicle to traverse directly over the manhole, with the wheels completely to the side of the entire width of the manhole’s ramping. It is this condition that plaintiff alleges was dangerous and defective, and the City adduced no evidence to refute that allegation. Accordingly, whether the City’s work — the ramping of the manhole — “immediately resulted in the existence of a dangerous condition,” thus rendering the City liable to plaintiff for her injuries, is a question of fact for the jury … . …

The City’s argument that the court erred in rejecting its argument sub silentio that it is nonetheless entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it on the ground that the condition was open and obvious is unavailing. Whether a dangerous or defective condition is open and obvious relates to the duty to warn of the hazard, not the duty to neutralize it … . Summary judgment may only be granted on an open-and-obvious defense “when the established facts compel that conclusion . . . on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence”; otherwise, the inquiry “is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” … . Timmons v Praylow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02744, First Dept 5-6-25

Practice Point: The question whether a condition, here a raised manhole cover, is open and obvious applies to the duty to warn, not the duty to neutralize a hazard, and is rarely appropriate as a basis for summary judgment.

Practice Point: The written-notice requirement, which is often a condition precedent for a negligence action against a municipality stemming from a road-condition, does not apply where, as here, it is alleged the municipality created the dangerous condition (a raised manhole cover).

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE SLIPPERY CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined defendant did not not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the slippery substance because no proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall was presented:

The defendant … failed to establish … that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery substance on the floor. “To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’ … . Evidence of general cleaning practices are inadequate to show “lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … . Here, the managing member of the defendant testified only that all staff had a general responsibility for the upkeep and cleanliness of the restaurant. Outside these general statements, the defendant provided no further information on when the specific area of the plaintiff’s fall had last been inspected or cleaned … . Rhoden v 515 Rest., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02617, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: This case presents another instance of the failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. A lack of constructive notice is demonstrated by specific proof the area of the fall was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall, not by proof of general cleaning practices.

 

, , ,

THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL NURSING FACILITY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-19-RELATED DEATH IS PRECLUDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA); THE REPEAL OF THE ACT IS NOT RETROACTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence-based lawsuit against defendant residential nursing facility stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s death from COVID-19 was precluded by the immunity conferred by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082, repealed by L 2021, ch 96, § 1) (EDTPA). The repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive:

The EDTPA, as effective August 3, 2020, to April 5, 2021, provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of providing health care services,” if: (a) the health care facility “is providing health care services in accordance with applicable law, or where appropriate pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule”; (b) the act or omission occurs in the course of providing health care services and the treatment of the individual is impacted by the health care facility’s “decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the state’s directives”; and (c) the health care facility “is providing health care services in good faith” (Public Health Law former § 3082[1][a]-[c]). …

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of immunity … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the repeal of the EDTPA is not retroactive … . Lara v S&J Operational, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02582, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Although the EDTPA has been repealed. the repeal is not applied retroactively. The COVID-19-related immunity conferred by the act precluded the lawsuit here.

 

, , ,

THE RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG WAS NOT A “TRIVIAL DEFECT” AS A MATTER OF LAW, YET PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS DID NOT SUBMIT WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THE SLIP AND FALL CASE WHICH WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF THEREFORE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this legal malpractice action, determined there was a question of fact in the underlying slip and fall case which plaintiff’s attorneys could have, but failed to, raise. The raised sidewalk flag which caused plaintiff’s fall was not trivial as a matter of law, as the judge in the slip and fall case ruled. Plaintiff’s attorneys did not submit written opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment in the slip and fall case:

There is no “per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” (id. at 510). A “holding of triviality must be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone” … . Thus, the “issue is generally a jury question because it is a fact-intensive inquiry” … .

Even assuming defendants met their initial burden of proof in showing that plaintiff could not prevail on her negligence claim, plaintiff raised an issue of fact in opposition. Plaintiff estimated that the elevation differential of the defect was an inch and a half or “a couple of inches” at the time of her accident, and the adjacent building’s superintendent testified that the elevation was about half an inch to one inch on the day of the accident. Administrative Code of the City of New York requires remediation for sidewalk flags with a height differential of one-half inch or more (see Administrative Code § 19-152[a][4]). Violation of that code is “not per se non-trivial . . . [but] is one factor to consider when deciding the issue of triviality” … . Barrett v Sacks & Sacks, LLP, 2025 NY Slip Op 02547, First Dept 4-29-25

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s attorneys could have successfully precluded summary judgment in the underlying slip and fall case but failed to submit written opposition to the summary judgment motion. That failure raised a question of fact in the instant legal malpractice action.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy