You are here: / Negligence
,

THE METEOROLOGICAL DATA WAS NOT SWORN TO; DEFENDANTS THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The defendants asserted the storm in progress defense, but the meteorological data was not in admissible form:

In this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured after he fell on a snowy or icy condition on defendants’ driveway, defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The meteorologists’ reports relied upon by defendants were not in admissible form … . The reports contain no jurat, stamp of a notary public, or any other indication that the experts were actually sworn … .

In any event, contrary to defendants’ contention, the testimony of the parties alone did not establish that the snowstorm was still in progress at the time of the accident, and was therefore insufficient to avail them of the storm in progress defense … . Morales v Gross, 2021 NY Slip Op 00632, First Dept 2-4-21

 

, ,

RARE CASE IN WHICH A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY MAY RENDER THE CITY LIABLE FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL; BECAUSE THE DELAY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY MAY NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the existence of a special relationship with the city and dismissal based on the doctrine of governmental function immunity was not appropriate. Plaintiff called 911 and was told the ambulance was on its way. Plaintiff had other options for assistance but relied on the 911 operator’s statement. Apparently the ambulance response was delayed. Absent a special relationship a municipality may not be held liable for breach of a duty owed to the general public. Governmental immunity generally protects discretionary actions. Here the delayed response may not have been due to the deliberate exercise of discretion and therefore may not be protected by the immunity doctrine:

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to establish a special relationship between the City and the decedent that brings her claim within the exception to the general rule that a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty that it owes to the general public — such as the duty to provide ambulance service … . The allegation that the 911 operator told plaintiff that “we are on our way” is sufficient to establish defendants’ assumption of an affirmative duty to act on the decedent’s behalf … . Plaintiff sufficiently alleged justifiable reliance on the call operator’s statement through an affidavit submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion in which she listed several additional actions she would have taken to secure help but for the operator’s assurance … .

Dismissal is also not appropriate at this stage pursuant to the doctrine of governmental function immunity, which shields public entities from liability for “discretionary” actions taken during the performance of “governmental functions” … . It is undisputed that the provision of emergency care by FDNY EMTs constitutes a governmental function … . It is also clear that determinations of whether and when to dispatch an ambulance, the type of ambulance to dispatch and from where, and the route the ambulance should take are discretionary in nature … . However, it is not clear that the delay at issue here was due to an affirmative exercise of this discretion, rather than an unintentional failure to timely dispatch an ambulance … . Xenias v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00647, First Dept 2-4-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK WITH A BALL DURING A PRACTICE DRILL WHERE MULTIPLE BALLS WERE IN PLAY; TWO DISSENTING MEMORANDA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over two separate dissents, determined plaintiff high school baseball player assumed the risk of injury from being struck with a ball during a so-called “Warrior Drill” where multiple balls are in play:

Having more than one ball in play may not be an inherent risk in a traditional baseball game, but the record indicates that it is a risk inherent in baseball team practices … . Although plaintiff asserts that the presence of a screen between certain players may have provided a false sense of security that they would be protected, thereby creating a dangerous condition beyond the normal dangers inherent in the sport, this argument is belied by his testimony unequivocally establishing that he did not rely upon the screen for safety but, rather, thought that the drill was unsafe even in the presence of the screen. Thus, the conditions were “as safe as they appear[ed] to be” … .  As the evidence showed that plaintiff was an experienced baseball player who “knew of the risks, appreciated their nature and voluntarily assumed them,” defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under the primary assumption of risk doctrine … . Grady v Chenango Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 00468, Third Dept 1-28-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS MISSED THE DEADLINE AND THEREBY WAIVED THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFF, THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND COMPEL AN EXAM SHOUD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness and compel a medical examination of plaintiff should have been granted. Although the defendants missed the agreed deadline for the exam, they had an adequate excuse and there was no prejudice:

Although a defendant waives the right to medical examinations of the plaintiff by failing to conduct them within the time period set forth in compliance conference orders … , “under certain circumstances and absent a showing of prejudice to the opposing party, the court may exercise its discretion to relieve a party of a waiver of the right to conduct a physical examination” … . Here, a scheduled medical examination of the plaintiff failed to happen due to a clerical error by the vendor that scheduled the examination. Consequently, the defendants did not have the opportunity to conduct an independent medical examination of the plaintiff. Further, no prejudice was shown by the plaintiff. Andujar v Boyle, 2021 NY Slip Op 00400, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE TRIPPED ON A TWIG ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH WAS NOT ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED; DEFENDANT, IN HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITIONS OR THAT THE CONDITIONS WERE NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged she tripped on a twig on the sidewalk in an area which was not adequately illuminated. The defendant, in her motion papers, did not demonstrate she lacked constructive notice of the conditions or that the conditions were not a proximate cause of the fall:

A property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . “In a premises liability case, a defendant [real] property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that she lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous conditions—to wit, the twig on the sidewalk and inadequate lighting on the premises, or that these conditions were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall … . Since the defendant failed to meet her initial burden as the movant, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Wittman v Nespola, 2021 NY Slip Op 00454, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

,

IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE INTRUDER KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING, IN A PRE-MEDITATED, TARGETED ATTACK DID NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INSULATE THE LANDLORD FROM LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN LOCK ON THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR DOOR; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH A LINE OF 1ST DEPARTMENT CASES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, disagreeing with a line of First Department decisions, determined a targeted, premeditated attack on a building resident is not necessarily an intervening cause which insulates the landlord from liability. Here plaintiff’s decedent was targeted by her former fiance (Boney) who set her, himself and one of her children on fire in the hallway outside plaintiff’s decedent’s apartment. There was evidence the exterior door to the building did not have a functioning lock. The Second Department held that the defendant landlord (the New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA]) did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the broken lock was a proximate cause of the attack and whether the attack was foreseeable:

The test in determining summary judgment motions involving negligent door security should … not focus on whether the crime committed within the building was “targeted” or “random,” but whether or not, and to what extent, an alleged negligently maintained building entrance was a concurrent contributory factor in the happening of the criminal occurrence. In examining whether there is a triable issue of fact as to foreseeability and proximate cause requiring trial, a jury could conceivably conclude that the chronically broken lock at the building’s front door provided Boney with an opportunity to attack the decedent, in a manner that might not otherwise have been possible, and that NYCHA could have foreseeably anticipated that its broken front door lock would result in the entry of intruders into the building for the commission of criminal activities against known or unknown specific tenants … . All of these actions should be examined sui generis, recognizing the unique facts of individualized matters, rather than simplistically or arbitrarily channeling them into either “targeted” or “random” criminal boxes that do not accommodate the factual nuances that may vary from case to case. Scurry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 00447, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM PRIOR TO SURGERY DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice, lack of informed consent and battery causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant doctor operated on the wrong site. Defendant testified she removed a cyst from plaintiff’s left leg and plaintiff alleged defendant should have removed an abscess. The court noted that plaintiff’s signing a consent form did not require dismissal of the lack of informed consent cause of action:

As to the lack of informed consent cause of action, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant and the generic consent form signed by the plaintiff presented triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant informed the plaintiff about the procedure, the alternatives thereto, and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits of the proposed treatment and the alternatives … . “[T]he fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish [the defendant’s] entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” where, as here, the form was generic, and beyond a barebones handwritten notation of the areas of the body, “Left Bartholin/Left Inguinal Abscess,” “did not contain any details about the operation” … . The consent form does not even indicate the procedure to be performed, but merely lists an area of the body, “Left Bartholin,” and a condition, “Left Inguinal Abscess.” Preciado v Ravins, 2021 NY Slip Op 00441, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

, ,

THE NYC ADMINSTRATIVE CODE REQUIRES ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TO REPAIR SIDEWALK FLAGS OVER 1/2 INCH; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE FLAG WAS THREE INCHES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was evidence the sidewalk flag was three inches high and the NYC Administrative Code requires the abutting property owner to repair any flags over 1/2 inch:

The Administrative Code of the City of New York requires owners of real property abutting any sidewalk to maintain that sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, which includes repaving, repairing and replacing defective sidewalk flags (Administrative Code § 7-210[3]). Furthermore, property owners are specifically required to, at their own cost and expense, repave or repair any portion of the sidewalk that constitutes a tripping hazard where “the vertical grade differential between adjacent sidewalk flags is greater than or equal to one half inch” ,,, ,

Plaintiff testified at the 50-h hearing that he tripped on a raised sidewalk flag that was approximately three inches higher than the adjacent flag, There is also photographic evidence that shows a visibly raised sidewalk flag in the area he identified as where his accident occurred. Tropper v Henry St. Settlement, 2021 NY Slip Op 00397, First Dept 1-26-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S INCONSISTENT DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED A CREDIBILITY QUESTION BUT DID NOT REQUIRE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY SHE DID NOT USE THE HANDRAILS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM ALLEGING THE HANDRAILS WERE DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this stairway slip and fall case, determined the plaintiff’s inconsistent deposition testimony raised an issue of credibility but did not warrant summary judgment dismissing the action. However the claim relating to the handrails of the should have been dismissed because plaintiff testified she did not use the handrails:

While plaintiff’s initial deposition testimony was later contradicted by the affidavit she submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion, after a break in the deposition, she testified that she had misspoken, and changed her testimony significantly as to how her fall on defendant’s staircase occurred. Plaintiff’s latter version of the accident is, in the main, consistent with her affidavit. Thus, while the change of testimony mid-deposition presents an issue of credibility for the jury, the affidavit does not present the kind of feigned issue of fact that requires the court to disregard the affidavit … . Since plaintiff’s expert relied upon the version of the accident described in plaintiff’s affidavit, his affidavit was properly considered … . Plaintiff’s inability to identify uneven riser heights as the cause of her fall is not fatal to her claim, as her post-break deposition testimony permits the inference that her fall was caused by uneven riser heights … .

However, plaintiff’s affidavit presents a feigned issue of fact as to whether her fall was caused by any defect of the staircase handrails and must be disregarded with respect thereto … . Plaintiff testified consistently through the entirety of her deposition that she was not holding the handrail, that it was her custom and practice not to use handrails on short flights of steps, and that at no time during her fall did she attempt, or even think of attempting, to put her hand on the handrail. Dixon v Sum Realty, Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 00367, First Dept 1-21-21

 

,

RARE CASE WHERE EVIDENCE OF A ROUTINE PROCEDURE FOR KEEPING A PARKING LOT FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, COMBINED WITH PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department held that evidence of a routine procedure for keeping the parking lot free of ice and snow, together with the plaintiff’s testimony she did not see any ice on the parking lot when she arrived at work on the day of the fall, supported summary judgment in defendants’ favor in this slip and fall case:

The plaintiff testified that she worked at the premises five days a week, typically from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that she either came to the premises by car pool or driving herself. The plaintiff indicated that she had not seen any runoff of melting snow or ice from snow piles in the parking lot to the area where she allegedly fell prior to or on the date of the accident. The plaintiff further testified that during the morning of January 20, 2011, she parked her car at the premises and did not notice any ice on the parking lot surface at that time. The plaintiff indicated that when she left work shortly after 6:00 p.m., she “look[ed] down at the ground” while walking to her car, and she did not see the ice on which she slipped, which she described as being clear, until after she fell. Further, Mauricio Pacheco, a maintenance worker for [defendant] RXR, testified that he checked the parking lot every morning, and if any ice was present, he would have salted the area. Pacheco indicated that if the temperature dropped below freezing or there was any precipitation later in the day, he would have again checked the parking lot for ice. Pacheco also testified that lighting for the parking lot turned on automatically at 6:00 p.m., and that he checked to make sure the lighting was working every morning. Zimmer v County of Suffolk, 2021 NY Slip Op 00331, Second Dept 1-20-21

 

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