You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE RENTAL-CAR DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RENTAL CAR WAS NOT NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE “GRAVES AMENDMENT,” THE RENTAL CAR DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the evidence submitted by the rental car company (A-1 Cars) did not eliminate a question of fact whether the car was negligently maintained. Plaintiff driver was rear-ended by the rental car:

“Under the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if the owner (i) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (ii) engaged in no negligence or criminal wrongdoing” … . Thus, under the circumstances of this case, in order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint under the Graves Amendment, A-1 Cars was required to show, prima facie, (1) that it owned the subject vehicle, (2) that it engaged in the trade or business of leasing or renting motor vehicles, (3) that the accident occurred during the period of the lease or rental, and (4) that there is no triable issue of fact as to any allegation of negligent maintenance contributing to the accident … .

Here, the only evidence submitted by A-1 Cars aside from an uncertified police accident report, which was inadmissible … , was an affidavit from its “Claims Administrator,” Mariley Mendez. The conclusory, unsupported affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, A-1 Cars’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the basis of the Graves Amendment. Among other things, Mendez’s averments that she “check[ed]” the vehicle prior to the rental and that there were no records of mechanical problems with the vehicle were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the vehicle was properly maintained and in good repair at the time of the subject accident … . Joseph v Marmolejos, 2026 NY Slip Op 02256, Second Dept 4-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what a rental-car company must prove with respect to maintenance of the rental car to take advantage of immunity from liability pursuant to the Graves Amendment.​

 

,

IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE FLOOR WAS WAXED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE NEGLIGENCE; THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THE WAX WAS NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this “smooth, slippery, shiny floor” slip and fall case. The fact that a floor has been polished does not establish negligence. Plaintiff must show the wax or polish was negligently applied:

“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . “A prima facie case of the negligent application of wax may be established by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present on the floor” … . “In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that there was no negligent application of wax to the floor … . Brener v Queens Blvd. Extended Care Facility Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02240, Second Dept 9-15-26 

Practice Point: A smooth, slippery, shiny floor is not actionable in a slip and fall case unless there is evidence wax was negligently applied.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED MOTHER TO “STAY AWAY” FROM FATHER AND CHILD; FATHER ASKED THE POLICE FOR HELP IN SERVING THE ORDER AND PICKING UP THE CHLID; MOTHER WOULD NOT LET THE POLICE INTO HER HOME; DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ADVISED THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT ENTER MOTHER’S HOME; THE NEXT DAY MOTHER MURDERED THE CHILD; THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIISMISSED; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, determined the negligence and wrongful death action against the municipal defendants should not have been dismissed, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the notice of claim or leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Plaintiff father was granted sole custody of his child in an order which required mother to “stay away” from father and the child. Plaintiff asked the police for help in serving the order on mother and picking up the child. The police attempted to serve the order, but mother slammed the door and would not let them in. District attorneys were then contacted for advice but determined the police could not enter mother’s home. The next day the police were called to mother’s home where the child was found deceased. Mother was convicted of murdering the child. The Second Department held that there was a special relationship between plaintiff and the municipality and the municipality was not entitled to governmental function immunity: The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:

To establish the existence of a special relationship, a plaintiff is required to prove four elements, also referred to as “the Cuffy factors” or “the Cuffy test,” namely:

“(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 …). * * *

Generally, the “decision to arrest an individual involves the exercise of discretion . . . and thus is cloaked with governmental immunity” … . However, here, in the face of what was, in effect, a temporary order of protection, the defendant police officers became, at a minimum, “obligated to respond and investigate” … . Therefore, the Village defendants have not conclusively established that their actions were purely discretionary … . Boyd v Village of Mamaroneck, 2026 NY Slip Op 02239, Second Dept 4-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes a “special relationship” between a plaintiff and a municipality and when a municipality is protected from liability in negligence by governmental function immunity.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTS DID NOT CREATE A DUTY OWED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY A CAR WHO ALLEGED A STREET LIGHT WAS NOT WORKING; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM;” IT MERELY FAILED “TO ACT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD” WHICH DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the breach of a duty owed to him by defendant contractor. Defendant had entered a contract with defendant municipality to maintain street lights. Plaintiff, a pedestrian struck by a car, alleged the accident was in part caused by a street light which was not working. The complaint, however, did not allege defendant contractor had “launched an instrument of harm,” as opposed to merely a failure to act as an instrument of good:

… [T]he facts alleged do not establish that the defendant launched an instrument of harm, as the defendant is not alleged to have “created or increased the risk [to the plaintiff] beyond the risk which existed even before [the defendant] entered into [its] contractual undertaking” … . The defendant’s purported negligence in failing to restore illumination to a darkened intersection amounts to, at most, a failure to act as an “instrument for good, which is insufficient to impose a duty of care” upon the defendant in the absence of contractual privity with the plaintiff … . Moreover, the contract submitted by the defendant in support of its motion conclusively demonstrated that the defendant’s contractual undertaking was “not the type of ‘comprehensive and exclusive’ property maintenance obligation” that would “entirely absorb” the Town’s duty “to maintain the premises safely” … . Weiss v Fran Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 02147, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what “launching an instrument of harm,” as opposed to “failing to act as an instrument of good,” means in the context of a duty owed by a party to a contract to an injured nonparty.

 

, , ,

THE COUNTY CHARTER, WHICH PURPORTED TO ELIMINATE THE CONSTRUCTIVE-NOTICE THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO A BICYCLIST BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN A COUNTY ROAD, DID NOT SUPERSEDE THE HIGHWAY LAW; TO STATE A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COUNTY MUST DEMONSTRATE BOTH A LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE AND A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, determined the county charter, which allowed the county to “opt out” of the constructive-notice provisions in the Highway Law, did not supersede the Highway Law. Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when his bicycle struck a pothole on a county road. Supreme Court denied the county’s summary judgment motion which argued the county charter eliminated the constructive-notice theory of liability. The Second Department affirmed the denial and further held that the county was required to show both a lack of written notice and a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition to warrant summary judgment:

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a bicycle accident, we are asked to determine whether the defendant, County of Suffolk, may enact legislation pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law that supersedes a New York State law. Specifically, the County contends that, through the enactment of Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2), it may supersede the provision of Highway Law § 139(2) that allows for an action to be maintained against a county, regardless of prior written notice, where the county had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition, pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(5). We hold that Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2)(iii) contradicts Highway Law § 139(2) and, thus, the County may not, as it contends, “exercise [its] right to opt out” of the requirements of said statute. The County also contends that, in effect, even if constructive notice could be a theory of recovery in the instant action, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing in the first instance that the County had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition. In other words, the County contends that its burden on this motion for summary judgment was only to show that it lacked prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition before the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the County had constructive notice of the condition. We hold, consistent with our precedent, that, when moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in cases invoking Highway Law § 139(2), the County must establish, prima facie, that it lacked both prior written notice and constructive notice of the alleged defective condition before the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard or with regard to whether another exception applies. Romas v County of Suffolk, 2026 NY Slip Op 02142, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: A county charter provision which contradicts the New York State Highway Law does not supersede the provisions of the Highway Law.

 

, , ,

IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAN BE TOLLED UNDER THE “CONTINUING WRONG” DOCTRINE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS ABUSED BY OTHER STUDENTS BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 2017; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED IN FEBRUARY 2018 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant NYC Department of Education (DOE) was not entitled to summary judgment in this negligent supervision action alleging a long pattern of abuse of plaintiff-student, J.A., by other students. Notably, the Second Department, as a matter of first impression, held that the 90-day time-limit for filing a Notice of Claim was tolled by the “continuing wrong” doctrine:

This Court holds that the notice of claim was timely because the continuing wrong doctrine applies … . As a general rule, the continuing wrong doctrine may be “employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of the limitations period to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . The continuing wrong doctrine allows a later accrual date of a cause of action “where the harm sustained by the complaining party is not exclusively traced to the day when the original wrong was committed” … . “The distinction is between a single wrong that has continuous effects and a series of independent wrongs” … .

This Court has not previously addressed the question of whether the period within which a notice of claim may be filed is tolled where there is a continuous pattern of harassment and/or unlawful conduct in a school setting and allegedly negligent supervision of a student by school administrators charged with a duty to properly supervise their students. J.A. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02084, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Here in this negligent-supervision action it was alleged plaintiff-student was subjected to a pattern of abuse by other students for a period of months. In a matter of first impression, the Second Department held that incidents which occurred more than 90-days before the Notice of Claim was filed were not time-barred pursuant to the “continuing wrong” doctrine.

 

, , , ,

A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint should not have been granted, noting that a plaintiff need not present any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss, as opposed to a motion for summary judgment:

Supreme Court improperly granted the motion of [defendants] pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s earlier directive “to provide an affidavit from a physician attesting [to] the merits of her claims.” The burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). A plaintiff need not make an evidentiary showing in support of the complaint in order to defeat such a motion and will not be penalized for failure to do so … . Here, where the motion was not converted into one for summary judgment, the plaintiff had no obligation to provide an affidavit from an expert to support the allegations in the amended complaint in order to defeat the [defendants’] motion … . * * *

… [A]ccepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the amended complaint sufficiently stated causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent … . Wilber v Borgen, 2026 NY Slip Op 02001, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: A plaintiff need not submit any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss the complaint. Here the judge should not have granted the motion on the ground the plaintiff did not comply with the court’s directive to submit an affidavit from a physician.

 

, ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; THEREFORE REFERENCES TO A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE STRICKEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the hospital’s motion to strike allegations of lack of informed consent should have been granted. That cause of action was not identified in the complaint. Therefore plaintiffs could not use their bill of particulars to assert it:

We agree with the Hospital defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking, in effect, to strike the allegations of lack of informed consent from plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars to the Hospital defendants, and we modify the order accordingly. “[A] bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . Whatever the pleading pleads, the bill must particularize since the bill is intended to [afford] the adverse party a more detailed picture of the claim . . . being particularized . . . A bill of particulars may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . For those purposes, “[l]ack of informed consent is a distinct theory of medical malpractice liability rooted in a specific professional duty to reasonably inform and obtain consent from the patient,” and claims for traditional medical malpractice and lack of informed consent ” ‘comprise[ ] different elements’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he complaint is based solely on [traditional] medical malpractice and does not contain a separate cause of action for lack of informed consent” … and that a review of the allegations in the complaint does not support the conclusion that the distinct theory of lack of informed consent was ” ‘sufficiently pleaded to avoid surprise and prejudice to [the Hospital] defendants’ ” … . Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ complaint does not presently plead a cause of action for lack of informed consent, the allegations in plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars relating to lack of informed consent must be stricken … . Heather J. v Rochester Regional Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 01880, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Here the complaint did not allege a cause of action for lack of informed consent. Therefore references to lack of informed consent in the bill of particulars can be stricken.​

 

DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DOCTRINE, 18 INCHES OF SNOW HAD FALLEN LESS THAN TWO HOURS BEFORE; PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON STAIRS IN THE LOBBY; PLAINTIFF’S OWN TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants (the building owner and manager) were not liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall on water on interior stairs because of the storm-in-progress doctrine:

Defendants, the owner and manager of the building in which plaintiff was injured, established their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting undisputed meteorological data establishing that plaintiff’s accident occurred no more than 1 hour and 50 minutes after cessation of a major winter storm, which resulted in the accumulation of more than 18 inches of snow. Thus, under the storm-in-progress doctrine, defendants’ duty to maintain the lobby in a safe condition was suspended at the time plaintiff slipped and fell on the stairs, as defendants did not have a reasonable amount of time to permit discovery and remediation of the storm-related wet condition … .

Defendants also demonstrated that there were no triable issues of fact as to whether they created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Plaintiff does not maintain that defendants created the hazardous condition. As to notice, plaintiff himself testified that he saw no wet condition or puddles on the stairs when he ascended them approximately 45 minutes before he slipped and fell on the way down; he also testified that only after his fall did he see dirty water on the stairs and small puddles in the lobby … . Therefore, the wet condition could not have existed for more than 45 minutes, which is insufficient to discover and remedy a dangerous condition … . Alvizurez v North State Realty Assoc. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01839, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the storm-in-progress doctrine in a slip and fall case.​

Practice Point: Note that a plaintiff’s own testimony can reveal that a defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall.

 

, ,

THE LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TENANT TO PREVENT AN ASSAULT BY ANOTHER TENANT; THE LANDLORD’S DUTY IS NOT TRIGGERED UNLESS THE LANDLORD HAS THE AUTHORITY, ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF A TENANT-ASSAILANT; THE ABILITY TO EVICT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord did not have a duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another:

… [The landlord] demonstrated prima facie that they were not liable for the third-party defendant’s alleged assault on plaintiff. A landlord has no duty to prevent one tenant from attacking another tenant unless it has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the actions of the assailant …  Here, defendants had no authority or opportunity to remove Vasquez from the premises prior to the assault. Defendants’ employee testified that defendants were unaware of prior complaints of [the tenant] engaging in violence, and plaintiff acknowledged that before the attack she never complained about [the tenant] being violent. Moreover, the assault upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable … .

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Defendants’ ability to evict [the tenant] did not constitute the requisite authority, ability, and opportunity to control him … . Plaintiff failed to identify any prior complaints about [the tenant] being violent or making explicit threats of violence. Plaintiff’s generalized complaints about unsupervised children on the complex and about other children engaging in bullying were not sufficient to put defendants on notice that [the tenant] might be violent … . Rodriguez v Madison Sec. Group, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01869, First Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of a landlord’s duty to prevent an assault by one tenant against another.

 

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