You are here: / Negligence

IN THIS BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, WHETHER A ONE-AND-A-QUARTER-INCH GAP IN THE ROADWAY WAS “OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS” SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW; IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE JURY BASED ON ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in this bicycle-accident case based upon a 1 1/4 inch gap in the roadway. Supreme Court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion, in part, on the conclusion that the defect was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Third Department noted that whether a defect is open and obvious is usually a question for a jury:

To the extent Supreme Court dismissed the complaint based upon its conclusion that the gap was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, we note that “[w]hether a condition is open and obvious does not preclude liability . . . as a matter of law; rather, it is a factor that impacts the foreseeability of an accident and the comparative negligence of the injured party” … . Indeed, “[t]he determination as to whether a condition is open and obvious generally falls within the province of a jury, as it requires consideration of the unique facts presented by the case before it” . “In this regard, the determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … . Here … [plaintiff] indicated that his attention was occupied by a changing traffic light ahead and a moving motor vehicle to the left, and that there were cars parked to his right in…  designated spots. Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the nonmovants … , the record does not compel the conclusion that the gap was readily observable with the reasonable use of one’s senses and not inherently dangerous … . Stegman v City of Glens Falls, N.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op 03486, Third Dept 6-4-26

Practice Point: Here in this bicycle accident case, a 1 1/4 inch gap in the roadway could not be deemed “trivial” or “open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” as a matter of law.

 

,

THAT PLAINTIFF IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT HAVE A PROPER DRIVER’S LICENSE DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the fact that plaintiff in this traffic accident case did not have a proper driver’s license at the time of the accident did not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence:

… [T]hat plaintiff was driving without a proper driver’s license does not provide a basis for finding an issue of fact as to comparative negligence (see Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [4th Dept 2011] …”[“the absence or possession of a driver’s license is not relevant to the issue of negligence”]). Torres v Occhino, 2026 NY Slip Op 03412, First Dept 6-2-25

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the fact that plaintiff did not have a proper driver’s license does not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence.

 

,

THE CONTRACTOR RETAINED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER TO INSTALL AN OIL TANK; THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF THE TANK BROKE OFF AND STRUCK HIM; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WERE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against a contractor, Controlled Combustion, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s employer was retained by Controlled Combustion to install an oil tank. A piece of the tank broke off and struck the plaintiff. Controlled Combustion did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work:

Controlled Combustion is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims because it established that it did not “actually exercise[] supervisory control over” plaintiff’s work … . General oversight, regular inspections, and authority to stop unsafe work are insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence … . Plaintiff testified that while installing an oil tank in the basement of a building owned by 2350 Broadway, he was struck by a base piece of the tank when the piece detached and fell from an electric chain hoist, which was owned by his employer. Controlled Combustion, a commercial heating company, was retained to perform work in the building, and it in turn retained plaintiff’s employer to install the oil tank. Plaintiff also testified that his employer came up with the plan to move the base piece with a hoist and that all orders of how to do his job came from his employer, not Controlled Combustion. Rosario v C.C. Controlled Combustion Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03279, First Dept 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “supervision and control” over a plaintiff’s work such that the contractor which hired plaintiff’s employer can be liable to plaintiff under Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence.

 

, , , , ,

MOTHER STABBED HER TWO CHILDREN AND FILED AN INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL; THE SURVIVING DAUGHTER AND FATHER SUED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL ALLEGING MOTHER WAS NEGLIGENTLY TREATED SHORTLY BEFORE THE STABBING; MOTHER WAIVED THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT AND RELATED PRIVILEGES BY FILING THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF MOTHER’S MEDICAL RECORDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined non-party mother had waived the physician-patient and related privileges by filing a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) section 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the prior criminal trial. Mother had stabbed her two children. The instant personal injury action is brought by the surviving child and her father alleging mother was negligently treated by defendant hospital shortly before the stabbing. The plaintiffs sought discovery of mother’s medical records:

Generally, medical records are protected from disclosure (see CPLR 4504 [physician-patient privilege]; 4507 [psychologist-patient privilege]; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c] [privilege for patient information reported to the Office of Mental Health or the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities]). However, a patient can waive those privileges “either expressly by authorizing the record’s release or implicitly by placing his or her mental condition in issue” … . However, simply denying the allegations in a complaint does not constitute such a waiver … . * * *

… [W]aiver of the physician-patient and related privileges in a criminal action generally carries over to a subsequent civil action, provided the defendant’s mental condition remains at issue … . * * *

We are of the view that … the filing of a CPL 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the criminal case was sufficient to demonstrate that [mother]  placed her mental condition at issue so as to waive her privilege to confidentiality of her medical, psychiatric, and mental health records maintained by [defendant]. . S.M. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03248, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Filing a notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in a criminal trial waives the physician-patient and related privileges and the waiver carries over to a subsequent related civil action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKERS SUCH THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD REASONABLY RELY ON THE BROKERS TO RENEW A POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant insurance brokers may be liable in negligence with respect to an audit which led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped. Whether the brokers can be held liable depends on whether there was a “special relationship” between the brokers and the plaintiffs upon which plaintiffs could reasonably rely. The plaintiffs raised a question of fact on the existence of a special relationship:

Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence claim because there are issues of fact concerning whether the parties had a special relationship, exceeding that of a traditional broker-client relationship. Plaintiffs testified that, among other things, defendants advised plaintiffs regarding insurance issues, addressed plaintiffs’ audits, and handled insurance policy changes … . Although defendants’ principal testified that the insurance carrier did not contact defendants during the audit that eventually led to plaintiffs’ coverage being dropped, one of the individual plaintiffs testified that he had worked with defendants for more than a decade, used defendants for all six of his businesses, and that he would send everything in his possession relating to insurance to defendants, who would in turn take care of it, including when plaintiffs received audit requests from the insurance carrier. In such a situation where “there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on,” a special relationship may arise thereby “creating an additional duty of advisement” even in the absence of a specific request from the insured to the broker … .

There are also issues of fact concerning which party was responsible for managing the renewal process as defendants’ involvement with previous audits may evince a course of conduct demonstrating that the renewals were in fact defendants’ responsibility … . The record evidence does not disprove as a matter of law that defendants’ inaction in renewing the policy did not proximately cause plaintiffs’ injuries … . S & M Bronx Inc. v Diversified Planning Brokerage LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03247, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary to demonstrate a “special relationship” with insurance brokers such that the brokers can be held liable in negligence for failing to renew a client’s policy.

 

, ,

THE JUSTICE FOR INJURED WORKERS ACT (JIWA) PROHIBITS GIVING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT TO WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION BOARD RULINGS IN SUBSEQUENT PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE SAME INCIDENT, EVEN WHEN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULING PREDATES THE ENACTMENT OF THE JIWA (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division’s reversal of Supreme Court on a different ground, determined the Justice for Injured Workers Act (JIWA), which prohibits giving a Workers’ Compensation Board’s ruling collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent personal injury action, applies to Workers’ Compensation Board rulings which predate the enactment of the JIWA. The Appellate Division described the application of collateral estoppel in this context as the retroactive application of the JIWA. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that a “statute does not operate ‘retrospectively’ merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute’s enactment:”

At the time Supreme Court rendered its decision, JIWA had been in effect for several months. By its plain terms, JIWA, as of its effective date, prohibits courts from giving collateral estoppel effect to workers’ compensation decisions arising out of the same occurrence, except with respect to the existence of an employer-employee relationship (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 118-a). Pursuant to a straightforward prospective application of JIWA, Supreme Court therefore erred in giving collateral estoppel effect to the 2021 [pre-enactment] decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board. * * *

As of JIWA’s effective date of December 30, 2022, courts are prohibited from giving collateral estoppel effect to workers’ compensation decisions in pending or future lawsuits, except as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Because the statute applied at the time Supreme Court rendered its decision, the court erred in granting defendant’s motion.  Garcia v Monadnock Constr., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03217, CtApp 5-21-26

Practice Point: Here, although the JIWA was applied to a Workers’ Compensation Board ruling which predated the enactment of the JIWA, it was not necessary to apply the JIWA “retroactively.” Only a straightforward prospective application of the JIWA was required.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT BOARD CERTIFIED IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, THE EXPERT SET FORTH A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT BY AN INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s medical expert need not be board certified in emergency medicine to be qualified to offer an opinion. The hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for the care provided by an independent physician:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine. “‘A physician need not be a specialist in a particular field to qualify as a medical expert and any alleged lack of knowledge . . . [or] expertise goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony'” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ expert set forth a sufficient foundation for his or her opinion, based on his or her clinical experience and familiarity with the applicable standards of care … . …

… [G]enerally, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician chosen by the patient … . “However, an exception to the rule that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the treatment provided by an independent physician applies where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing, or a nonemployee physician otherwise acted as an agent of the hospital or the hospital exercised control over the physician” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that [the hospital] was free from vicarious liability for [plaintiff’s] care and treatment in its emergency department as a matter of law … . Valitutto v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03020, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s expert was qualified to offer an opinion despite not being board certified in emergency medicine.

Practice Point: Here the hospital did not demonstrate it could not be held vicariously liable for treatment by an independent physician.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON DID NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY, COULD OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the allegation plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop for no apparent reason did not raise a question of fact in this rear-end collision case:

… [A] rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). “A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability” … .

“An assertion that the lead vehicle came to a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle” … , although such an assertion may be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of comparative fault … . * * *

[Defendant driver] asserted that the plaintiff brought his vehicle to a sudden stop for no apparent reason and “without any vehicle slowing or stopping ahead of plaintiff.” In essence, “this explanation amounts to nothing more than a claim that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop which, without more, failed to raise a triable issue of fact” as to the defendants’ liability … .

… Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff, if any, which would offset the amount of damages, must abide the trial … . Brindisi v ARJ Transp., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02958, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: The allegation that plaintiff’s car stopped suddenly for no apparent reason will not defeat summary judgment in a rear-end collision case.

Practice Point: However if plaintiff is shown to be comparatively negligent at trial, the amount of damages could be offset.

 

,

A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY); BUT A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6) FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a prior owner of property may be liable pursuant to Labor Law 200 and common law negligence for a dangerous condition which the new owner did not have time to remedy, but prior owners cannot be liable under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) which relate to construction activities:

… Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Federal Brick’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it to the extent that they sounded in premises liability. … Federal Brick failed to establish, prima facie, that it could not be held liable for the allegedly dangerous premises condition as a former owner. Inasmuch as “Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of property owners and general contractors to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .

… T]he “narrow exception” that allows for premises liability to be extended to prior owners of property … does not apply to the statutory liability imposed by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Those statutes apply to certain construction-related activities … , rather than premises conditions for which a prior owner might remain responsible. Quintero v MBH Capital, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03010, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Under some circumstances a prior property owner may be liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition if the new owner has not yet had time to learn of it and remedy it. This prior-owner liability may be pursunat Labor-Law-200 and common-law negligence theories.

 

, , ,

TENANTS AND THE PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FURNITURE BLOWN OFF A 12TH STORY TERRACE BY WIND (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s actions against the property manager and tenants should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged she was injured by a heavy wooden lounge chair that was blown off a 12th story apartment terrace:

In this personal injury action, plaintiff seeks damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained when a heavy wooden lounge chair struck her after it was blown off the terrace of a 12th floor apartment in Manhattan. The building was owned by 15 Union Square West and managed by BHS; the apartment itself was owned by GR Realty and was rented to the tenant defendants.

Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint as against the tenant defendants and BHS. There are issues of fact as to whether the tenant defendants, who owe a common-law duty of reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition independent of any obligation that might be imposed by their lease, had constructive notice of the potentially hazardous condition created by the unsecured lounge chair … . Although the lease stated that tenant defendants were not permitted to change the location of any furniture in the apartment, there were occasions when GR Realty granted tenant requests to move furniture. The record also presents evidence that the tenant defendants used the terrace during their occupancy, and issues of fact exist as to whether the risk posed by this furniture was visible and apparent during this period.

Similarly, there are issues of fact as to whether BHS, which managed the property, had constructive notice of the potentially hazardous condition and exercised control over the use of the terraces yet failed to take sufficient precautions in order to prevent or remedy a hazardous condition … . There is evidence in the record that BHS had previously been involved in notifying owners of potential hazards posed by windy conditions, and in fact had helped owners to secure furniture or bring it inside during bad weather…. . Sen v GR Realty Holdings LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02947, First Dept 5-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the various theories of liability triggered by injury caused by furniture which was blown off a 12th story apartment terrace.​

 

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