You are here: / Negligence
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE DANCE FLOOR IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of liquid on the dance floor in the area of plaintiff’s slip and fall:

The defendants did not submit any evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed. In support of their motion, they submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of Hercules Sirico, the catering hall owner, who testified that the wood dance floor would be cleaned on an as-needed basis by one of the porters, of whom he was in charge. Sirico also testified that, on the night of the subject party, he entered the ballroom where the party was being held multiple times to make sure that members of his staff were doing things properly, but did not stay in the ballroom during the entire party. Although Sirico testified that, while he was in the ballroom, he always took a look at the dance floor and did not notice any wetness or liquids on it, he also testified that every time he was in the ballroom, the dance floor was always packed, with more than 100 people dancing, that guests would get drinks at the “constantly busy” mobile bar situated just “shy” of the dance floor, and bring the drinks onto the dance floor, and that no one stopped or warned the guests from doing so. Further, the defendants submitted the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, during which the plaintiff testified that when he went to dance, he was slipping and sliding on the dance floor because it was wet, that there were a lot of people on the dance floor with drinks, and that it was “very dark” in the ballroom. Ellis v Sirico’s Catering, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02785, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LADDER WAS INTENDED FOR USE AS A STAGE PROP BY ACTORS AS OPPOSED TO AN OSHA COMPLIANT LADDER; EVEN WHERE A LABOR LAW 200 ACTION WILL NOT LIE, A COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE VIABLE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ALTERING THE LADDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the Labor Law 200 cause of action against Center Line should have been dismissed but the common law negligence cause of action properly survived summary judgment. Although the decision doesn’t spell it out, it appears that defendant Center Line altered the ladder in question by gluing on an extra rung. Apparently the ladder was to be used by actors and Center Line argued it was a stage prop and was not intended for use an OSHA compliant ladder. The viable contract-based “Espinal” negligence theory was based upon launching an instrument of harm (altering the ladder):

Even assuming that Center Line is a proper Labor Law § 200 defendant, it cannot be held liable under the statute. This case is a means and methods of work case, and there is no proof that Center Line had authority to supervise and control plaintiff’s work … .

A claim for common-law negligence may lie even though there is no Labor Law § 200 liability … . A triable issue of fact exists as to whether Center Line negligently created or exacerbated a dangerous condition so as to have “launche[d] a force or instrument of harm” … . Although Center Line augmented the ladder as directed by Production Core, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Center Line could have reasonably anticipated that the gluing of the rung to the top of the ladder would pose a hazard and likely to cause injury … . While plaintiff and the codefendants claim that Center Line dangerously altered the ladder despite knowing that the ladder was structural and climbable, Center Line claims that the ladder was a prop ladder that was not meant to be OSHA compliant, and that it augmented the ladder in reliance on Production Core’s assurances that the top portion of the ladder would not be ascended by the actors. Such raises an issue of fact for the jury to decide. Mullins v Center Line Studios, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02756, First Dept 5-4-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING A WATER POLO GAME IN GYM CLASS; HIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a student’s negligent supervision cause of action against the school district stemming from injuries during a water polo game in gym class properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged his head hit the bottom of the pool:

… [D]efendants failed to meet their initial burden inasmuch as their own submissions on the motion raise triable issues of fact whether they engaged in negligent supervision and whether that negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. While defendants’ submissions established that the physical education teacher who supervised water polo had modified the typical rules thereof to prevent contact, defendants’ papers raise issues of fact whether those rules were enforced, the water polo game as modified was safe and age-appropriate, and the supervision of the game was reasonable under the circumstances. Among other things, defendants submitted the deposition of the physical education teacher, wherein he provided conflicting testimony as to whether he actually allowed contact during the water polo game and whether he allowed students to take the ball from each other. His testimony therefore created an issue of fact whether defendants had notice of students engaging in dangerous conduct similar to the conduct that caused plaintiff’s injuries and, thus, whether such conduct was preventable … . Zalewski v East Rochester Bd. of Educ., 2021 NY Slip Op 02700, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the water on the floor as a matter of law. Defendant did not submit any proof demonstrating when the area was last cleaned or inspected:

To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . A “defendant cannot satisfy its burden merely by pointing out gaps in the plaintiff’s case, and instead must submit evidence concerning when the area was last cleaned and inspected prior to the accident” … . While defendant submitted evidence that it hired a contractor who was generally expected to clean up any hazards, such as water on the floor, it did not submit evidence establishing when the area of plaintiff’s fall was last inspected … . As a result, ” ‘[a] triable issue of fact exists as to when the [area of plaintiff’s fall] was last inspected in relation to the accident and, thus, whether the alleged hazardous condition . . . existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the incident to permit . . . defendant to remedy that condition’ ” … . Furthermore, “[t]he fact that plaintiff did not notice water on the floor before [s]he fell does not establish defendant[‘s] entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue whether that condition was visible and apparent” … . Arghittu-Atmekjian v TJX Cos., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02689, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK LED TO AN ACCIDENT IN WHICH A VAN DRIVEN BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYEE STRUCK DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; A LAWSUIT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE AGAINST PLAINTIFF CULMINATED IN A $900,000 SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE RESULTING INCREASED INSURANCE PREMIUMS FORCED PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS; THE LOSS OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT A FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ITS TRUCK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the damages suffered by plaintiff. Two wheels fell off defendant’s dump truck. Plaintiff’s (Able Medical’s) employee struck one of the wheels and then struck defendant’s employee, the truck driver. Defendant’s employee sued the plaintiff and the matter was settled for $900,000. Plaintiff alleged the increase in insurance premiums resulting from the accident and settlement forced plaintiff to go out of business:

… [P]laintiffs’ theory of causation is based on a lengthy chain of events spanning the course of two and a half years. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to maintain its truck, that rear wheels fell off of the truck causing a motor vehicle accident, that the accident resulted in a lawsuit, and that the settlement of the lawsuit ultimately resulted in an increase in insurance premiums for plaintiffs, which caused plaintiffs to close their business. On its motion, defendant established that those alleged economic injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of defendant’s alleged negligent maintenance of its truck and, thus, the connection between defendant’s activities and plaintiffs’ economic losses is too tenuous and remote to permit recovery … . Able Med. Transp., Inc. v Paragon Envtl. Constr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02687, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN UNGUARDED, UNILLUMINATED SEAWALL AT THE BACK OF DEFENDANTS’ YARD CONSTITUTED AN ACTIONABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION; PLAINTIFF, AT NIGHT, FELL OVER THE WALL DOWN TO THE BEACH BELOW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the unguarded seawall in defendants’ backyard constituted a dangerous condition. Plaintiff was at defendants’ party and walked to the back of the yard to relieve himself when he fell over the wall, which was 20 feet above the lake:

Defendants’ backyard is approximately 20 feet above the lake, separated by a natural cliff that runs along the shoreline. Built into the face of the cliff is the 15-foot-high seawall, which consists of two levels, with an upper and a lower platform, and a cement staircase built into the center of the seawall that permits access from the backyard to the lower platform. Defendants’ backyard includes a cement sidewalk that leads to the top of the seawall’s staircase. Plaintiff fell off the seawall down to the beach below and sustained various injuries. * * *

… [D]efendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact whether the alleged hazard posed by the cliff and seawall, given the lighting conditions at the time of the accident, “was visible and obvious or presented a latent, dangerous condition” … . Stempien v Walls, 2021 NY Slip Op 02683, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

,

AFTER WALKING OVER A TRAP DOOR, PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACK AND FELL THROUGH THE OPEN DOOR; DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the lease did not unambiguously insulate the out-of-possession landlord from liability for plaintiff’s fall through an open trap door in a deli, the landlord demonstrated it did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Apparently plaintiff walked over the closed trap door but then stepped back and fell through the open door:

… [T]he owner failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it was an out-of-possession landlord that did not have a contractual duty under the lease to maintain and repair the subject trapdoor … . “‘[W]hile the meaning of a contract is ordinarily a question of law, when a term or clause is ambiguous and the determination of the parties’ intent depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence or a choice among inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then the issue is one of fact'” … . Although paragraph 46 of the rider to the lease effectively limits the owner’s responsibility to “structural portions” of the deli, that phrase is only partially described in the lease, and is not so clear and unambiguous as to be subject only to the interpretation that it excludes the trapdoor … .

However, the owner established, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence … . At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he walked over the trapdoor, and then “seconds” later when he stepped back, he fell through a hole caused by the open trapdoor. Accordingly, even though the owner did not present evidence of the last time it inspected the trapdoor, the plaintiff’s testimony establishes lack of constructive notice as a matter of law … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the owner’s representative testified at his deposition that he was aware of the existence and location of the trapdoor and went into the deli once a month to collect rent, a general awareness that customers could fall through an open trapdoor in the aisle of the deli is legally insufficient to constitute constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident … . Vaughan v Triumphant Church of Jesus Christ, 2021 NY Slip Op 02560, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a swimming official, slipped on water on a pool deck at an indoor swimming facility. The water did not come from the pool, but rather was condensation from a dehumidification system:

… [T]he defendant cannot obtain summary judgment by relying on the cases in which courts have dismissed personal injury claims arising out of slipping on water around pools based on the reasoning that such water was necessarily incidental to the use of the area … . …

[Re: assumption of the risk:] … [P]articipants are not deemed to have assumed risks that are concealed or unreasonably increased over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … .

Here, the hazardous condition of an indoor pool deck wet from condensation that had formed and dripped was not open and obvious and created a risk beyond that inherent in the sport of swimming in an indoor swimming facility … .. Further, “the doctrine of assumption of risk does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises” … . O’Brien v Asphalt Green, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02534, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DID NOT STOP FOR A RED LIGHT AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR AS PLAINTIFF WAS PASSING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION; FAILING TO STOP FOR A RED LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence that defendant Glennon ran a red light and struck plaintiff’s car as plaintiff was passing through the intersection warranted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Running a red light is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which constitutes negligence per se:

“[A] violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1), a driver when “facing a steady circular red signal, . . . shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection.” …

[Steedman, a witness, testified the] first two vehicles passed through the intersection without incident, but then the plaintiff, who was driving the third vehicle, was struck by Glennon’s vehicle. Steedman … testified that he observed Glennon looking down into her lap at the time of the accident. Thus, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that Glennon entered the subject intersection against a red light, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1) … . Callahan v Glennon, 2021 NY Slip Op 02509, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS RAPED IN DEFENDANTS’ BAR/RESTAURANT AND RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY AND THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s third-party-assault-negligence action alleging inadequate security at defendant bar/restaurant should not have been dismissed. The building was owned by Harvard Agency and leased to Turnmill. Plaintiff was raped in a basement restroom. Plaintiff raised questions of fact by evidence a rape had occurred at a nearby bar owned by the same family, the bar was in a high crime area, and there were no security cameras in the basement:

Our courts have long held that “‘New York landowners owe people on their property a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain their property in a safe condition'” … . “Although landlords . . . have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties, they are not the insurers of a visitor’s safety … . …

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact by pointing to evidence that Harvard was aware of another assault at a bar owned by the same family and located only a few blocks from Turnmill ( … [… ‘[t]here is no requirement . . . that the past experience relied on to establish foreseeability be of criminal activity at the exact location where plaintiff was harmed or that it be of the same type of criminal conduct to which plaintiff was subjected”]).

… [P]laintiff submitted a detailed expert affidavit indicating that the bar/restaurant was in a high crime area, and that the security employed was inadequate and a deviation from reasonable security standards … . Jane Doe v Turnmill LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02495, First Dept 4-27-21

 

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