You are here: / Negligence
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT SPECULATIVE OR CONCLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this dental malpractice and lack of informed consent should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavits raised questions of fact:

“In order not to be considered speculative or conclusory, expert opinions in opposition should address specific assertions made by the movant’s experts, setting forth an explanation of the reasoning and relying on specifically cited evidence in the record” … . In determining a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … , and “all reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party” … . * * *

Summary judgment is not appropriate in a dental malpractice action where, as here, the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions, since conflicting expert opinions raise credibility issues which are to be resolved by the factfinder … . …

“[L]ack of informed consent is a distinct cause of action requiring proof of facts not contemplated by an action based merely on allegations of negligence” … . “To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . Many v Lossef, 2021 NY Slip Op 00165, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

THE SNOWPLOW DRIVER DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the reckless disregard standard applied in this traffic accident case involving a municipal snowplow:

“A snowplow operator ‘actually engaged in work on a highway’ is exempt from the rules of the road and may be held liable only for damages caused by an act done in ‘reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Reckless disregard requires more than a momentary lapse in judgment … . “This requires a showing that the operator acted in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow” … .

Oviedo-Mejia [the snowplow driver] testified that he was traveling in reverse at a speed of five to seven miles per hour with the lights and beeping alert of the snowplow vehicle activated. Oviedo-Mejia testified that he kept looking in the mirrors as the snowplow vehicle was moving in reverse, but he did not see the plaintiff prior to the alleged impact. Under the circumstances, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that Oviedo-Mejia did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Kaffash v Village of Great Neck Estates, 2021 NY Slip Op 00159, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

/0 Comments/by

THE JURY VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURIES WAS NOT INCONSISTENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to set aside the jury verdict in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff had double-parked. Her granddaughter ran toward traffic after getting out of the car. Plaintiff ran to stop her granddaughter and tripped over a piece of wood used as shoring by defendants who were installing a gas line. The jury found plaintiff negligent, but found her negligence was not a proximate cause of her injuries:

“A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . “[W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view” … . Here, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the plaintiff was negligent, but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of her falling over the piece of wood bracing that was supporting the stack of wood planking. The jury could have adopted the view that the defendants’ failure to maintain the wood they were storing in the roadway in a safe condition was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Cruz-Rivera v National Grid Energy Mgt., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00149, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE TREE WELL COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he fell into a hole between a tree well and the sidewalk. The city is responsible for maintaining tree wells:

The City’s motion for summary judgment was improperly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell in a hole between a tree well and the sidewalk. According to plaintiff, the dirt in the tree well was lower than the sidewalk. The City had the obligation to maintain the tree well located in the sidewalk in a safe condition … . The size, shape, configuration and location of the Big Apple Map’s line markings in the same area of the sunken tree well, which indicate a raised or uneven portion of the sidewalk, “raise an issue of fact as to whether the City had prior written notice of the particular defect” … . Although plaintiff’s testimony and averments in regard to the precise precipitating cause of his fall are somewhat inconsistent, his consistent statements that a hole in an area between the sidewalk and tree well was a factor in causing him to fall raise triable issues as to whether a tree well defect contributed to his fall. Castro v 243 E. 138th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00107, First Dept 1-12-21

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE SECURITY COMPANY WERE PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SEVERE INJURIES CAUSED BY TWELVE-YEAR-OLD BOYS WHO THREW A SHOPPING CART OVER A FOURTH FLOOR RAILING STRIKING PLAINTIFF ON THE GROUND BELOW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering a new trial on damages if the plaintiffs do not stipulate to a reduction from $14.5 to $10 million, determined the defendant property owners and the security company (PSS) were properly found liable for the injuries caused by two twelve-year-old boys who threw a shopping cart over a fourth floor railing onto plaintiff on the ground below. There had been prior incidents where items were thrown over the railing and down an escalator:

… [T]he jury heard evidence that the Owner Defendants had notice of a recurring hazardous condition at the premises, namely, that youngsters frequented the location and threw various items off the elevated structure. According to witnesses and security log entries, young people threw such items as candy, food, rocks, glass bottles and garbage. Additionally, there was documentary evidence that 20 days before plaintiff’s accident, several youths had thrown a shopping cart down the escalator. Yet, according to testimony by one of defendant’s managers, the Owner Defendants did not put into place any remedial measures, such as raising the height of the rails, increasing the number of security guards or putting up warning signs, despite having notice of the recurring dangerous condition. Thus, we decline to disturb the jury’s findings apportioning liability 65% against Owner Defendants and 25% against defendant PSS. Hedges v Planned Sec. Serv. Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00117, First Dept 1-12-21

 

/0 Comments/by
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant had constructive notice of a raised sidewalk flag and whether the defect was trivial in this slip and fall case:

Although the property manager states that the premises were regularly inspected, and any condition observed would have been reported to him, reference to a generalized inspection practice “is insufficient to satisfy defendant[‘s] burden of establishing that [he] lacked notice of the alleged condition of the sidewalk prior to the accident” … .

As a general rule, whether a defect is trivial depends on “the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … . The relevant inquiry is whether the defect was “difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as a hazard or difficult to pass over safely on foot in light of the surrounding circumstances” … . Although defendant relies on photographs to prove his defense that the defect is trivial, summary judgment should not be granted where, as here, “the dimensions of the alleged defect are unknown and the photographs and descriptions inconclusive” … . Trinidad v Catsimatidis, 2021 NY Slip Op 00047, First Dept 1-5-21

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE WRONGFUL DEATH COMPLAINT ALLEGED PORT AUTHORITY WAS NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO INSTALL SUICIDE-PREVENTION BARRIERS ON THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the complaint alleging the Port Authority was negligent for failure to install suicide-prevention barriers on the George Washington Bridge should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent had jumped off the bridge. Supreme Court held the maintenance of the bridge was a governmental function and there was no special relationship between Port Authority and plaintiff’s decedent. The Second Department held the complaint alleged Port Authority was acting in a proprietary capacity and therefore was subject to ordinary principles of negligence:

… [T]he complaint did not need to allege that the Port Authority owed a special duty to the decedent, as opposed to the public generally, as the Port Authority did not establish that it was acting in a governmental capacity in maintaining the bridge … . Since the complaint has alleged facts that support a determination that the Port Authority was acting in a proprietary capacity, the Port Authority would be subject to the same principles of tort law as a private landowner, and as such, the complaint states a cause of action … . Here, accepting all facts alleged in the complaint as true for the purposes of this motion, the Port Authority’s remaining contentions likewise do not establish that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Perlov v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 08092, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/0 Comments/by
,

DEFENDANT’S FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant had raised a feigned issue which did not raise a question of fact in this pedestrian traffic accident case:

The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through her own affidavit, which demonstrated that she was walking within a crosswalk, with the pedestrian signal in her favor, when the defendants’ vehicle failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her … .

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Edelstein’s affidavit contradicted his admission immediately following the accident, as reflected in a police accident report. This affidavit was a belated attempt to avoid the consequences of his earlier admission by raising a feigned issue and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Gooden v EAN Holdings, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 08043, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/0 Comments/by

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TOO CLOSE IN THE ON-COMING LANE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver executed a left turn when plaintiff’s decedent, who apparently was being chased by police, was too close:

“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 provides that the ‘driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard'” … . The operator of an oncoming vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing operator will yield in compliance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . A driver is negligent where he or she failed to see that which, through proper use of his or her senses, the driver should have seen … . “At the same time, a driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found to have contributed to the happening of the accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by [defendants] in support of their motion … failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether [defendant driver] was free from fault in the happening of the accident and, if not, whether [plaintiff’s decedent’s] negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Specifically, a triable issue of fact exists, inter alia, as to whether, at the time [defendant driver] initiated her turn, [plaintiff’s decedent’s] vehicle was “‘so close as to constitute an immediate hazard'” … . Gaudio v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 08041, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/0 Comments/by
,

A CONTRACTOR ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED ON THE AREA OF THE ROADWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THEIR LIABILITY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality’s (Port Washington North’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. The code provision requiring written notice of the dangerous condition applied to the village, not to Port Washington North, and Port Washington North did not demonstrate it did not create the condition. In addition, defendant contractor did not demonstrate it did not do any work on the roadway in the area of the slip and fall:

A contractor [J. Anthony] may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk … . Thus, in moving for summary judgment, J. Anthony had the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it did not perform any work on the portion of the roadway where the accident occurred or that it did not create the allegedly defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . However, J. Anthony failed to satisfy its burden … .The failure to do so requires the denial of that branch of J. Anthony’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … .

Port Washington North moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it had not received prior written notice of the alleged defect which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. … Since the prior written notice provision specifically limits the notice requirement to “street[s]” located “within the Village” (Village Code §§ 143-23, 143-22), this provision is not applicable to the facts here, as the location of the accident was not within Port Washington North. Moreover, Port Washington North failed to meet its prima facie burden of eliminating all triable issues of fact regarding its role in creating the allegedly defective condition … . Downing v J. Anthony Enters., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 08038, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/0 Comments/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy