You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, THE DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS WERE DISCRETIONARY AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, AND THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK FOR NEGLIGENT INVESTIGATION; PLAINTIFF’S WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION BASED UPON THE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FROM ABUSE BY FAMILY MEMBERS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s and the sheriff’s motions for summary judgment in this wrongful death case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendants were aware that plaintiff’s decedent was being abused by her half brother and mother and did not act to protect her. The Fourth Department held: (1) there was no special relationship between the county and plaintiff; (2) governmental immunity protected the defendants because their actions involved the exercise of discretion; (3) there is no cause of action in New York for negligent investigation or prosecution:

“[A]t the heart of most of these ‘special duty’ cases is the unfairness that the courts have perceived in precluding recovery when a municipality’s voluntary undertaking has lulled the injured party into a false sense of security and has thereby induced him [or her] either to relax his [or her] own vigilance or to forego other available avenues of protection” … . Here, [plaintiff’s decedent’s brother] did not in fact relax his own vigilance inasmuch as he made two follow-up calls to the … caseworker asking her to reopen the investigation, and he was not induced to forego other avenues of relief … . * * *

Defendants established that the actions of the … caseworkers “resulted from discretionary decision-making” … . While the caseworkers may have been negligent, they were exercising their discretion throughout the investigations … . * * *

… ‘[A] claim for negligent training in investigative procedures [against the Sheriff] is akin to a claim for negligent investigation or prosecution, which is not actionable in New York’ ” … . Further, inasmuch as the allegations of negligent hiring, training, and supervision against the Sheriff all involved conduct requiring the exercise of the Sheriff’s discretion and judgment, the Sheriff established his entitlement to the governmental function immunity defense … . Maldovan v County of Erie, 2020 NY Slip Op 06595, Fourth Dept 11-13-20

 

, ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER AND WITNESSED A TRUCK STRIKE AND KILL HER BROTHER; SHE ALLEGED SEVERE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA; DEFENDANT’S DISCLOSURE DEMANDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT AND INSTRAGRAM ACCOUNTS, AS WELL AS THE PHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES, OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FRIENDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s disclosure demand for the Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram accounts of infant plaintiff, as well and the last known addresses and phone numbers of infant plaintiff’s friends should have been granted. Infant plaintiff was crossing the street with her brother when he was struck and killed by a truck allegedly owned by defendant. Infant plaintiff claimed psychological injuries based upon her being in the zone of danger and witnessing her brother’s death:

… [T]he defendant demonstrated that records from the infant plaintiff’s Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram accounts were “reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence” regarding the alleged emotional and mental trauma that the infant plaintiff suffered from as a result of the subject accident, which allegedly was, in part, evidenced by her social isolation and withdrawal … . In addition, the defendant demonstrated that its request for the last known addresses and phone numbers of three of the infant plaintiff’s friends was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the infant plaintiff’s claimed mental and emotional trauma. In response, the plaintiffs do not contend that the requested disclosure was unduly burdensome, overbroad, or otherwise improper. The Supreme Court erred in finding that disclosure of the last known addresses and phone numbers of the infant plaintiff’s three friends was improper because they would provide evidence that was cumulative of other evidence previously exchanged during discovery. Therefore, under the circumstances, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to produce the last known addresses and phone numbers of three friends of the infant plaintiff, and authorizations to obtain records from the infant plaintiff’s Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram accounts. Abedin v Osorio, 2020 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

DEFENDANT TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PIPE STICKING OUT OF THE FLOOR AND FELL INTO THE UNGUARDED ELEVATOR MECHANISM; THE DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (19 Realty’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted on the ground that the piece of pipe sticking out of the floor, over which plaintiff tripped, was a trivial defect. The pipe stub was near unguarded elevator mechanisms in the elevator room of an apartment building. Plaintiff fell into the mechanism and the injuries to his hand required amputation. The court noted that the size of a defect is not the proper criteria for determining whether a defect is trivial, and further noted the defendant had notice of the defect because it had been there since 2007:

“[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . “A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . Moreover, “there is no minimal dimension test or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable,” and therefore “granting summary judgment to a defendant based exclusively on the dimension[s] of the . . . defect is unacceptable” … . The cases recognize that “a holding of triviality [must] be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone” … .

Here, 19 Realty failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that the pipe stub defect was trivial and nonactionable, given that the surrounding circumstances included the unguarded and exposed hoist and moving cables of the elevator cars, which magnified the risk the pipe stub posed and rendered the raised pipe stub more dangerous than it might otherwise have been. Moreover, both 19 Realty and the court below improperly relied almost exclusively on the size of the pipe stub, which the Court of Appeals has held is not the proper analysis (see Hutchinson, 26 NY3d at 77) … . Arpa v 245 E. 19 Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06444, First Dept 11-12-20

 

,

THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE PROTECTED THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY FROM LIABILITY IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE; THE DRIVER TESTIFIED HE BRAKED SLIGHTLY WHEN A CAR WAS IN FRONT OF THE BUS MAKING A RIGHT TURN (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, affirming Supreme Court. but on different grounds, determined the New York City Transit Authority’s (NYCTA’s) motion for summary judgment in this bus-passenger injury case. Plaintiff alleged he fell when the bus stopped in an unusual and violent manner. The First Department applied the emergency doctrine to affirm summary judgment in favor of the NYCTA. The bus driver testified he slightly touched the brake when a car was in front of the bus making a right turn:

The emergency doctrine recognizes that when an actor is faced with a sudden, unexpected circumstance leaving little or no time for deliberation, “the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . Under the doctrine, a person faced with an emergency “cannot reasonably be held to the same accuracy of judgment or conduct as one who has had full opportunity to reflect, even though it later appears that the actor made the wrong decision” … . Further, “[w]hile it is often a jury question whether a person’s reaction to an emergency was reasonable, summary resolution is possible when the individual presents sufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of his or her actions and there is no opposing evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a legitimate issue of fact on the issue” … . …

… [P]laintiff failed to submit any evidence tending to show that Williams [the bus driver] created the emergency or could have avoided plaintiff’s fall by other means than slightly stepping on the brake … . Castillo v New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 06447, First Dept 11-12-20

 

,

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (1), WHICH IMPOSES VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON THE OWNER OF A VEHICLE, DOES NOT PERMIT A NEGLIGENT DRIVER TO SUE THE VEHICLE OWNER FOR THE DRIVER’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined defendant vehicle-owner’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. The deceased driver’s estate sued the owner of the car under the vicarious liability statute, Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 (1). The Second Department held that the statute does not permit a negligent driver to recover against the vehicle-owner for the driver’s own negligence:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) provides that “[e]very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner.” The predecessor of this provision—section 282-e of the Highway Law, which was enacted in 1924 …—was intended to alleviate the harshness of the common law rule whereby the owner of a vehicle who merely permitted another to drive it could not be held liable for the driver’s negligence unless the driver was the owner’s employee or agent and was using the vehicle as part of the owner’s business … . Thus, the purpose of the new legislation was to ensure that persons injured by a negligent driver had access to “a financially responsible insured person against whom to recover for injuries” … . In other words, while the driver’s own negligence remained grounded in common law, the new statute simply made owners vicariously liable for injuries caused by the driver’s negligence, so long as the driver was operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission … . The Legislature “did not otherwise change any of the rules of liability,” and “may not be presumed to make any innovation upon the common law further than is required by the mischief to be remedied” … .

In light of the history and purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, we hold that the statute does not permit a negligent driver (or, in this case, the driver’s estate) to recover damages against the owner for injuries resulting from the driver’s own negligence … . Shepard v Power, 2020 NY Slip Op 06568, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF INSTEAD OF AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWING IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (WATER ON THE FLOOR IN FRONT OF A VEGETABLE DISPLAY WITH MELTING ICE) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant grocery store’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate the water on the floor did not come from melted ice in adjacent vegetable display. A defendant can not win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof in opposition which will not even be considered until the moving party makes out a prima facie case:

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of establishing that it neither created the hazardous condition that allegedly caused the fall, nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a complaint cannot satisfy its initial burden merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident … . The defendants’ submissions in support of their motion failed to affirmatively demonstrate that the wet condition on the floor was not created by water and melted ice leaking from an asparagus display, which was adjacent to the location of the plaintiff’s fall. Lauzon v Stop & Shop Supermarket, 2020 NY Slip Op 06513, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS GIVEN TOO MUCH MORPHINE, WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action was properly granted. The dissenters argued there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff’s decedent was given too much morphine, but the majority found plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit speculative and conclusory on that issue:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the opinion of her expert that the decedent was negligently administered an overdose of morphine that caused or contributed to his death. The Supreme Court properly concluded that the expert’s unsupported and speculative opinion that an overdose caused or contributed to the decedent’s death was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, and we respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues’ contrary conclusion.

More specifically, neither the medical records nor the autopsy report indicated that the decedent suffered a morphine overdose. Further, neither the autopsy report nor the death certificate listed morphine as a cause of or contributing factor in the decedent’s death. It is unclear that the plaintiff’s expert even reviewed the death certificate and autopsy report, but, in any event, he did not address them or their conclusions that the decedent’s death was caused by septic shock brought about by other conditions. The plaintiff’s expert also failed to address the conclusion of the hospital’s expert that the decedent’s drop in blood pressure was related to his intra-abdominal process rather than the administration of medication. Indeed, although the plaintiff’s expert noted that morphine “can decease blood pressure and cause difficulty breathing,” he did not affirmatively state that the morphine actually caused these effects in the decedent, who was on a ventilator. Given the decedent’s multiple infirmities and severely compromised condition upon his admission to the hospital, and the failure of the plaintiff’s expert to address the conclusions reached in the death certificate, autopsy report, and affirmations of the defendants’ experts, the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert that a morphine overdose caused or contributed to the decedent’s death was speculative and conclusory … . Jacob v Franklin Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 06506, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, , ,

STATEMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED AN “AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE” FORM BEFORE REFUSING TREATMENT WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN MEDICAL RECORDS AND IN THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS BUSINESS RECORDS, AS ADMISSIONS, AS DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST, OR PURSUANT TO THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice case, determined the statements in the medical records and in depositions that plaintiff’s decedent signed an “against medical advice” (AMA) form and refused admission to the hospital constituted inadmissible hearsay and were not admissible pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519):

The defendants argue that the entries in the … Hospital records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Generally, “[a] hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient” (… see CPLR 4518[a]). However, “where the source of the information on the hospital or doctor’s record is unknown, the record is inadmissible” … . This is because “‘each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, must be acting within the course of regular business conduct or the declaration must meet the test of some other hearsay exception'” … . Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, because the record does not reflect that the source of the information in the entries was known, it cannot be established whether the source had a duty to make the statement or whether some other hearsay exception applied … . …

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the deposition testimony of {the doctors] was admissible. Pursuant to CPLR 4519, otherwise known as the Dead Man’s Statute, “[u]pon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his [or her] own behalf, of the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication.” Here, both [doctors] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute …. Moreover, they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 06504, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, ,

THE STATE, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR HIRED TO DO RENOVATIONS DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH INJURED CLAIMANT; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the defendant (New York State) was an out-of-possession landlord with respect to a public restroom at a state park. Plaintiff alleged a heavy trash receptacle fell from the wall. The Court of Claims had granted the state’s motion for summary judgment. But the Second Department held there was a question of fact whether the independent contractor hired by the state to renovate the restroom created the dangerous condition:

“While an out-of-possession landowner is generally not responsible for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landowner has retained control over the premises and is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct, liability may attach to an out-of-possession owner who has affirmatively created a dangerous condition or defect” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the claim as alleged negligence because it failed to submit evidence showing that the independent contractor that the defendant hired to renovate the subject restroom did not cause the alleged dangerous condition  … . Cintron v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06486, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT SURGEON’S TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HABIT EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE DEFENSE EXPERT, WHO RELIED ON THE INSUFFICIENT HABIT EVIDENCE, DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; EVEN IF SUFFICIENT, HABIT EVIDENCE ONLY RAISES AN INFERENCE FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER, IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH WHAT PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AS A MATTER OF LAW; NEW EVIDENCE RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined: (1) the defendant surgeon’s (Dr. Fielding’s) testimony did not meet the criteria for habit or custom evidence; (2) habit evidence, even when sufficient, gives the jury the basis for an inference, but does not demonstrate what was done as a matter of law; and (3) a new theory raised in the reply papers should not have been considered. Dr. Fielding had no independent recollection of the operation on plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

In order to lay a foundation for [the] admission [of habit evidence], Dr. Fielding needed to establish that the practice of palpitating the bowel for perforations was routinely done by him in his open bariatric surgeries, and that it did not vary from patient to patient. He did not do so. He failed to offer testimony or provide any other proof regarding the number of times he had followed such a procedure during the hundreds of bariatric surgeries he had performed … . Nor did Dr. Fielding describe the LAP-Band procedure as being routine, without variation from patient to patient. Since Dr. Fielding did not lay a proper evidentiary foundation for his testimony based on custom and practice, and the expert’s opinion was made in reliance on that testimony, defendants did not satisfy their burden of proving a prima facie case entitling them to summary judgment … . …

… [E]ven if an appropriate foundation was laid for the habit testimony that defendants’ expert relied on, the motion for summary judgment still should have been denied. Where habit evidence is admitted, it only establishes that the claimed behavior or conduct was persistent and repeated in similar circumstances … . Evidence of habit only provides a basis for the jury to draw an inference, but it cannot be the basis for judgment as a matter of law … . Guido v Fielding, 2020 NY Slip Op 06391, First Dept 11-10-20

 

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