You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT CONCLUSORY OR SPECULATIVE; THE AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATED THE EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION ON PROPER WOUND CARE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit should not have been rejected on the ground the expert was not qualified to give an opinion on proper wound care, or on the ground the affidavit was conclusory:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact through the expert affirmation of Craig A. Nachbauer, a thoracic surgeon and Medical Director of the University of Vermont Health Network-CVPH Wound Center, who opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the respondents departed from the accepted standard of care and that such departure resulted in decubitus ulcers and the disfigurement of the plaintiff’s knees … . … [T]he plaintiff’s expert raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondents failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the decubitus ulcers … , including allowing him to remain prone without turning or repositioning him for over 90 hours, without the use of pillows, foam, and gel pads to protect his hips or knees … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s expert established that his qualifications were sufficient to render an opinion as to the propriety of the wound care provided to the plaintiff in 2008 … . … [T]he plaintiff’s expert averred … that he had practiced surgery and wound care for approximately 30 years and that by virtue of his training and experience, he was fully familiar with the standards of accepted practice in the field of wound care, and with the responsibilities of hospital staff and physicians in the prevention and treatment of pressure/decubitus ulcers, as they existed in 2008. Cerrone v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04593, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, , , ,

SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Moulton, addressed several unusual issues stemming from the allegation the renovation of defendant’s neighboring property damaged plaintiffs’ property. Two separate trials were held: a jury trial on tort (negligence) claims; and a nonjury trial on breach of contract claims (i.e., the contract allowing defendants access to plaintiffs’ property to facilitate the renovation). In the nonjury breach of contract action plaintiffs were awarded $6,255,007 for repair costs and $1,152,000 for alternate living expenses. In the jury trial (tort action) plaintiffs were awarded $5,000,000 for repair and $500,000 for alternate living expenses. The issues decided in plaintiff’s appeal are: the breach of contract judgment is appealable as a final judgment; Supreme Court properly precluded expert testimony on the loss of market value in plaintiffs’ home. The issues decided in defendant’s cross appeals are: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the breach of contract judgment and adopt the jury’s tort judgment; plaintiffs were entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from defendant. The final judgment which was entered used the breach of contract (nonjury trial) damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees totaling over $12 million. With respect to whether the judgment was appealable as a final judgment, the court wrote:

Our conclusion that the contract judgment is a final judgment starts with the definition of a judgment. “A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action or special proceeding and may be either interlocutory or final” (CPLR 5011; see also CPLR 105 [k] [“The word ‘judgment’ means a final or interlocutory judgment”]). “[A] fair working definition of the concept can be stated as follows: a ‘final’ order or judgment is one that disposes of all of the causes of action between the parties in the action or proceeding and leaves nothing for further judicial action apart from mere ministerial matters”  … . Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04587, First Dept 7-29-21

 

,

THE CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS WERE NOT CERTIFIED AS BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL; PROOF OF A GENERAL INSPECTION ROUTINE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this black-ice slip and fall case should not have been granted. The climatological records submitted to demonstrate there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall were not certified as business records and were otherwise insufficient. The evidence of a routine inspection practices was not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice:

… [T]he defendant relied upon, among other things, climatological data for Poughkeepsie Airport and Danbury Municipal Airport in Connecticut, as well as spotter reports of snowfall accumulation in neighboring towns. However, because these records were not certified as business records, they were inadmissible (see CPLR 4518[a] …). In any event, the climatological data and spotter reports gathered from nearby areas were insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied … . Moreover, the climatological data was inconsistent and contradicted the parties’ deposition testimony, transcripts of which the defendant also submitted in support of its motion, as to whether precipitation was falling at or near the time of the plaintiff’s accident … . * * *

… “[M]ere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, the testimony of the defendant’s witness, at best, established the defendant’s general inspection practices with respect to snow and ice on the defendant’s property … . Thus, absent specific evidence that this area was inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall, the defendant cannot rely on this testimony in meeting its prima facie burden … . Johnson v Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04543, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

,

THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES SIGNALING FOR 100 FEET BEFORE MAKING A TURN, EVEN THOUGH THE TRUCK WHICH MADE THE TURN WAS STOPPED AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT; DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, overruling a City Court decision, reversing the jury verdict in this truck-bicycle traffic accident case, determined the jury should have been instructed on the Vehicle and Traffic Law provision requiring that a turn signal be activated for 100 feet before turning. The truck was at a stop light and plaintiff testified the truck’s turn signal was not on when she pulled up to the stop light next to the truck. When she started riding straight through the intersection, the truck allegedly made a right turn and ran over her. The driver (Murphy) testified he put his signal on and then made the turn. The trial court instructed the jury on the Vehicle and Traffic Law provision which applies to parked cars and which does not have the “100-foot” signaling requirement. The Second Department found that the truck was not “parked” within the meaning of that provision:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) provides that “[a] signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.” Under Vehicle and Traffic § 1163(a), Murphy was required to signal his intention to turn right at the subject intersection. Thus, since a signal of intention to turn was required, the clear and unambiguous words used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) also required Murphy to give such signal “continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet” that he traveled before making the turn. The provision makes no exception for vehicles that are stopped at a red traffic light … .

… Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(d), which applies … to vehicles moving from a parked position, and which does not require a vehicle to signal its turn 100 feet before making it, is inapplicable. Murphy’s truck was not parked within the meaning of “park or parking” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129. Rather, it was stopped at a red light … . To the extent that People v Brandt (60 Misc 3d 956, 961 [Poughkeepsie City Ct]) holds otherwise, we overrule it.

The precise and specific duty established in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b) bore directly on the facts to which the parties testified, and, therefore, the Supreme Court erred in refusing to give that charge … . The statute establishes a standard of care, the unexcused violation of which is negligence per se … .  Moore v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04483, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

, ,

THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC WHICH OWNED THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITION SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS MEMBER STATUS; HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LLC COULD BE LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this premises liability case, determined the sole member of the LLC (Romanoff) which owned the premises was not liable, but there was a question of fact whether the LLC had constructive knowledge of the defective railing which collapsed when plaintiff leaned on it:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Romanoff, as a member of the LLC, cannot be held liable for the company’s obligations by virtue of that status alone … , and the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence as to the existence of circumstances that would entitle him to pierce the corporate veil to impose personal liability on Romanoff … .

… [T]he Romanoff defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the LLC did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . In support of their motion, the Romanoff defendants submitted … evidence that the porch railing that collapsed had not been physically inspected in the eight months following the purchase of the premises. They also failed to demonstrate that the alleged dangerous condition of the porch railing was latent and not discoverable upon a reasonable inspection. … [T]he Romanoff defendants relied upon the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that, as he leaned onto the railing to shake dust out of a blanket, he felt the railing move as soon as he made contact with it, and it did not appear to be attached to anything. Hayden v 334 Dune Rd., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04481, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

,

THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The climatological data presented to show there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall was not authenticated, related to a different county, and conflicted with plaintiff’s testimony at the 50-h hearing:

… [T]he defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the three pages of climatological data that it submitted in support of its motion should have been authenticated because these pages themselves did not indicate that the data contained therein was “taken under the direction of the United States weather bureau” (CPLR 4528). In any event, the climatological data was gathered from a neighboring county, and it was inconsistent with the plaintiff’s testimony at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that light snow fell about [*2]six hours prior to the accident. Under the circumstances, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident or that it did not have a reasonable opportunity after the cessation of the storm to remedy the alleged slippery condition … . Beaton v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04477, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S PARALYSIS, THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff’s expert failed to raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case:

… [P]laintiff alleged that if [defendants] Lougee and King had made an appropriate referral to an orthopedic specialist and monitored her condition after the referral was made, plaintiff would have received necessary surgery before she became paralyzed. … [Defendants] appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. * * *

The affidavit of plaintiff’s medical expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition inasmuch as the conclusory opinion of plaintiff’s expert that defendants’ “multiple deviations from the standard of care were a substantial contributing factor in causing [plaintiff’s injuries]” is insufficient to raise an issue of fact concerning proximate cause … . It is undisputed that treatment of a condition arising out of an issue with plaintiff’s spinal hardware is outside the scope of defendants’ practice and that referral to an orthopedic specialist … was appropriate, and plaintiff’s expert failed to identify what treatments or interventions were necessary, how defendants’ monitoring of [the orthopedic specialist] would have necessarily resulted in those treatments or interventions being performed by the specialist, and whether the timing of any such interventions would have prevented plaintiff’s injuries. Humbolt v Parmeter, 2021 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, ,

IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT DEMONSTRATED A STUDENT’S SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLANTIFF WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant school district demonstrated a student’s sexual assault of plaintiff was not foreseeable:

… [D]efendant met its … burden on the motion by establishing that the “sexual assault against [plaintiff by the student] was an unforeseeable act that, without sufficiently specific knowledge or notice, could not have been reasonably anticipated” … , and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Defendant’s submissions, including plaintiff’s testimony, established the undisputed fact that plaintiff and the student did not know each other and did not have any prior interactions before the sexual assault … . Although the student had an extensive and troubling disciplinary history that resulted in several detentions and suspensions, such history did not contain any infractions for physically aggressive conduct directed at other people, sexually inappropriate behavior, or threats of physical or sexual violence … .

… [W]hile the student’s history involved attendance issues, insubordination toward school staff, inappropriate verbal outbursts, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, possession and sale of drugs, and academic problems, that history did not raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the injury-causing conduct inasmuch as it was not similar to the student’s physically and sexually aggressive behavior that injured plaintiff … . “More significantly, [the student’s] prior history did not include any sexually aggressive behavior” … . We also agree with defendant that the court impermissibly drew an unsubstantiated and speculative inference that the student’s disclosure to a school social worker about being a victim of sexual abuse during his childhood, coupled with his substance abuse, should have provided defendant with notice of the student’s propensity to commit sexual assault … . Knaszak v Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04441, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL FROM HER BED IN A NURSING HOME WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from her bed in defendants’ nursing home:

Plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit from a physician with extensive experience in the treatment of geriatric patients and who is familiar with the standards of care applicable for skilled nursing facilities, including those in New York as they existed during the relevant time period … .. The expert opined that, based on decedent’s history of over 30 falls while at defendants’ facility, decedent was a “high fall risk.” Plaintiff’s expert set forth the interventions that defendants failed to implement to reduce decedent’s known and documented risk of falling. Moreover, he opined that, in this case, defendants failed to meet the relevant standard of care because they failed to use bed restraints, which were appropriate and would have prevented decedent’s fall, and failed to use side rails, alarms and motion detectors, which also would have prevented decedent’s fall. Thus, his affidavit raises a question of fact whether defendants were negligent by failing to implement available precautions to protect decedent from a foreseeable risk of falling … . Rosado v Rosa Coplon Jewish Home, 2021 NY Slip Op 04432, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AFTER THREATENING FAMILY MEMBERS AND KILLING A DOG; DEFENDANTS RELEASED PLAINTIFF THE SAME DAY AND PLAINTIFF KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS; PLAINTIFF ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS; THE RULE PROHIBITING A PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG DID NOT APPLY AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s medical (psychiatric) malpractice action properly survived a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was treated by defendants after he was brought to the hospital by the police pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.41. Plaintiff had threatened family members and killed a dog. Plaintiff was released the same day and shortly thereafter killed the three family members he had threatened. Ultimately plaintiff entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental illness or defect. The courts refused to apply the rule prohibiting a plaintiff from taking advantage of his own wrong because plaintiff was not responsible for his conduct:

With respect to the ground for dismissal asserted here, “as a matter of public policy, . . . where a plaintiff has engaged in unlawful conduct, the courts will not entertain suit if the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a serious violation of the law and the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks recovery are the direct result of that violation” … . The rule derives from the maxim that “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his [or her] own fraud, or to take advantage of his [or her] own wrong, or to found any claim upon his [or her] own iniquity, or to acquire property by his [or her] own crime” … . In cases in which the doctrine applies, “recovery is precluded ‘at the very threshold of the plaintiff’s application for judicial relief’ ” … . Notably, the Court of Appeals has applied the doctrine with caution to avoid overextending it inasmuch as the rule “embodies a narrow application of public policy imperatives under limited circumstances” … . * * *

… [A]ccepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, we conclude that the criminal court’s acceptance of plaintiff’s plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect demonstrates that, at the time of his conduct constituting a serious violation of the law, plaintiff lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either the nature and consequences of his conduct or that such conduct was wrong … . Thus, unlike cases applying the rule to preclude recovery, the record here establishes that plaintiff’s illegal conduct was not knowing, willful, intentional, or otherwise sufficiently culpable to warrant application of the rule … . Bumbolo v Faxton St. Luke’s Healthcare, 2021 NY Slip Op 04429, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

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