You are here: / Negligence

PLAINTIFF SUED THE DEVELOPER OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING ALLEGING EXCAVATION WORK CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING TO SETTLE AND LEAN; THE CITY ISSUED A STOP-WORK ORDER STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT-DEVELOPER THEN COUNTERCLAIMED ALLEGING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT IN NOT MAINTAINING PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING SUCH THAT THE EXCAVATION WORK WOULD NOT DAMAGE IT, RESULTING IN THE STOP-WORK ORDER AND CAUSING THE DEVELOPER PURELY ECONOMIC LOSS OF AT LEAST $16 MILLION; SUPREME COURT LET THE COUNTERCLAIM STAND BUT THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DISMISSED IT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PURELY ECONOMIC DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined the defendant-developer’s counterclaim alleging plaintiff was negligent should have been dismissed. Plaintiff sued the developer alleging excavation and construction on the developer’s property, which is adjacent to plaintiff’s building, caused plaintiff’s building to settle and lean. Defendant-developer counterclaimed alleging plaintiff was negligent in not maintaining plaintiff’s building such that the excavation would would not damage it. The counterclaim alleged economic harm ($16 million) stemming from a stop-work order triggered by the plaintiff’s complaint:

The negligence counterclaim asserts that plaintiff “had a duty to construct and maintain the 1992 Building in compliance with the [Building] Code” and “a duty to maintain the 1992 Building in a reasonable and safe condition.” It contends that, as evidenced by three structural engineering reports, the building was “not constructed in compliance with the Code,” “remains in violation of the Code” and “was constructed and remains in an unsafe condition.” … The counterclaim further asserts that, on December 13, 2023, as a result of these conditions, “the DOB issued a partial Stop Work Order for the Project Site, forcing [the developer] to stop construction on its own property because of structural instability of the 1992 Building that was caused by the 1992 Building’s non-compliance with the Code and [plaintiff’s] failure to maintain the 1992 Building in a reasonable condition.” According to the developer, it was “harmed by the delay in construction . . . due to this stoppage” in an amount not less than $16 million. The developer does not allege that plaintiff’s negligent design, construction, and maintenance of its building caused any bodily injury or property damage.

This appeal raises two novel issues: 1) whether Supreme Court correctly held that plaintiff owes the developer a common-law duty as an adjacent landowner to protect the developer’s excavation/foundation work from construction delays arising out of the stop work order and, 2) assuming the existence of a duty based on plaintiff’s status as an adjacent landowner, whether the court correctly held that the developer could recover purely economic damages.

We now answer both questions in the negative and reverse. 1992 Third Realty LLC v Third Ave NY Realty LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03871, First Dept 6-18-26

Practice Point: The owner of a building which is damaged by excavation work on an adjacent building by a developer, does not owe a duty to the developer to maintain his building such that the excavation work would not damage it.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT CALL HER TREATING PHYSICIAN AS A WITNESS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PHYSICIAN WAS UNAVAILABLE OR THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE CUMULATIVE; PLAINTIFF RELIED SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF A PSYCHIATRIST WHO FIRST SAW PLAINTIFF SIX YEARS AFTER THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “MISSING WITNESS” JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; VERDICT SET ASIDE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, granting defendant’s motion to set aside the jury verdict and direct a new trial in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined plaintiff’s failure to call her treating physician as a witness warranted the “missing witness” jury instruction. Plaintiff called only, Dr. Guy, a psychiatrist who saw plaintiff only a few times six years after the injury:

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she was walking on the sidewalk adjacent to defendant’s property when her foot became trapped in a hole, causing her to fall. At trial, plaintiff alleged that because of the accident, she suffered a cervical herniation that caused radiculopathy and required surgery. She further alleged that injuries to her knee and her lumbar spine would require future surgery.

The trial court should have given the jury a missing witness charge with regard to Dr. Jason Gallina, plaintiff’s treating physician and surgeon from the period beginning months after the accident until at least a year afterward. Dr. Gallina was the orthopedic surgeon who performed plaintiff’s cervical fusion surgery, and he was the doctor who allegedly recommended the lumbar surgery that plaintiff contended she would need in the future.

The law is well settled that a missing witness charge is warranted for the failure to call a treating physician as a witness at trial, unless the party opposing the inference shows that the witness is either unavailable or not under the party’s control, or that the witness’s testimony would be cumulative … . * * *

Although the burden was on plaintiff to show that Dr. Gallina was unavailable or not under her control, she made no such showing  … . … [T]he testimony from Dr. Gallina would not have been cumulative. Dr. Guy is a physiatrist, while Dr. Gallina is the orthopedic surgeon who performed plaintiff’s surgery. Encarnacion v St. Barnabas Hosp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03630, First Dept 6-9-26

Practice Point: The plaintiff in a personal injury action must call the treating physician as a witness or adequately explain the failure to do so. In the absence of an adequate explanation, the defendant is entitled to a “missing witness” jury instruction.​

 

, ,

MOTHER DEMONSTRATED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE ALLEGATION THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NEGLIGENT IN ADDRESSING THE BULLYING OF HER SON; MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant-mother demonstrated the school district had timely knowledge of the underlying facts of the potential negligence action against the district stemming from the bullying of her son. In addition, mother had a valid excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim, i.e., she was involved in related Family Court proceedings against her son. Mother’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted:

“General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) permits a court, in its discretion, to [grant leave] extend[ing] the time for a [claimant] to serve a notice of claim” (id. at 460-461). “The decision whether to grant such leave ‘compels consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances,’ including the ‘nonexhaustive list of factors’ in section 50-e (5)” … . ” ‘It is well settled that key factors for the court to consider in determining an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim are [1] whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay, [2] whether the [school district] acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter, and [3] whether the delay would substantially prejudice the [school district] in maintaining a defense on the merits’ ” … . “The presence or absence of any given factor is not determinative of the application and, moreover, the factors are ‘directive rather than exclusive’ ” … .

We agree with claimant that respondent possessed actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual …  Claimant averred in her affidavit in support of the application that, during the relevant time period, she made numerous calls to the Waterloo Middle School and the Waterloo Village Police about the ongoing abuse and bullying of her son. Additionally, claimant submitted documentation pertaining to a Family Court proceeding that was brought against her son due to actions he took apparently out of his frustration with the alleged abuse and bullying. The documentation states that the school counselor was involved in that investigation and that claimant’s son was “well known” to him. The school counselor also expressed the opinion that the bullying incidents were “unfounded.” Cindy W. v Waterloo Cent. Sch. Dist., 2026 NY Slip Op 03554, Fourth Dept 6-5-26

Practice Point: Here, demonstrating that the school district had timely actual knowledge of the facts underling a negligence allegation against the district was a major factor in granting the application tor leave to file a late notice of claim.​

 

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 based, 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.

 

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