You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

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

 

, , ,

SUBPOENA SEEKING 1099 FORMS SHOWING THE INSURER’S PAYMENTS TO TWO DOCTORS WHO PERFORM MEDICAL EXAMS FOR THE INSURER IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED; WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBPOENA FOR THE MEDICAL RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXAMS, THAT ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY SUPREME COURT AND CAN NOT, THEREFORE, BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry addressing a matter of first impression in the Third Department, determined the plaintiffs’ subpoena seeking 1099 forms (encompassing several years) issued by the insurer to the two doctors (Seigel and Hughes) who performed the medical examination of the plaintiff in this traffic accident case should not have been quashed. The payment records may provide information relevant to the doctors’ bias in favor of denying coverage. However the subpoena for the medical records for the examinations conducted by the two doctors was not addressed by the motion court and therefore could not be addressed on appeal:

The CPLR extends “full disclosure of all matters material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” to nonparties (CPLR 3101 [a] [4] …). “The words, ‘material and necessary,’ are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . “A subpoena will be quashed only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . …

… [T]he 1099 forms that plaintiffs seek would disclose the amount of compensation that Siegel and Hughes received for performing evaluations on defendant’s behalf and, with questioning, may reveal a financial incentive that the physicians have in testifying. A financial incentive is a relevant consideration in “ascertain[ing] any possible bias or interest on the part of [the physicians]” … . Given the liberal interpretation afforded the terms “material and … necessary” used in the CPLR … , and the general acceptance of testing a witness for bias and interest , we thus find that the financial records are discoverable … . Loiselle v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06325, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

, , , ,

THE ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT SURGEONS PERFORMED A CHIROPRACTIC PROCEDURE DURING SPINAL FUSION SURGERY SOUNDED IN BATTERY, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A CHIROPRACTOR, WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s allegation the defendant doctors derotated her pelvis (a chiropractic procedure) during spine fusion surgery sounded in battery, not medical malpractice, because the claim alleged intentional, not negligent, conduct. Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred. Plaintiff’s expert, a chiropractor, was not qualified to offer an opinion about the surgery performed by the defendants:

… [A]ny claim that defendants derotated plaintiff’s pelvis as a separate procedure from the surgery to which she consented is necessarily an allegation that they acted intentionally. Despite the fact that plaintiff’s complaint alleges only negligence, “when a patient agrees to treatment for one condition and is subjected to a procedure related to a completely different condition, there can be no question but that the deviation from the consent given was intentional” … . As such, this claim is subject to the one-year statute of limitations for the intentional tort of battery — that is, “intentional physical contact with another person without that person’s consent” — rather than the 2½-year period applicable to medical malpractice claims … . Young v Sethi, 2020 NY Slip Op 06330, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

,

IN A COMPREHENSIVE DECISION ANALYZING THE ELEMENTS OF PROOF IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, INCLUDING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT STORE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF A PUDDLE OF WATER IN FRONT OF AN ICE MACHINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an unusually detailed and comprehensive decision, went through all the factors relevant to slip and fall cases, including expert opinion evidence, and determined defendant store was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on water in front of an ice machine. The defendant demonstrated the area had been inspected an hour and a half before the fall and no one had complained about water on the floor. Therefore defendant did not have constructive or actual notice of the condition:

Defendants … established that the water was not on the floor for a sufficient period of time to charge them with having constructive notice that it was there. The porter averred that she inspected the area at about 8:23 a.m., or about an hour and a half before the accident and did not record any hazards. The deposition testimony of both plaintiff and his wife establish that the water puddle that caused plaintiff’s fall was clear and without any footprints or marks … . …

Defendants sustained their burden of making a prima facie showing that they had no actual notice of the water on the floor before the accident. Defendant store manager Luisi testified that he was unaware of any complaints about the area which were made before the accident.

Plaintiff’s expert affidavits failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants were negligent. First, the standards cited are couched in advisory terms and there is no evidence that they are an adopted and implemented industry standard or a generally accepted safety practice … . Although evidence of industry practice and standards is admissible to establish a duty of care, the expert affidavit fails to raise a triable issue of fact because it contains nothing more than conclusory opinions with respect to a deviation from an alleged industrywide practice of placing cones and absorbent rubber mats or carpets in front of ice freezers … . Velocci v Stop & Shop, 2020 NY Slip Op 06372, First Dept 11-5-20

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the building manager, Synoptic, was liable in this elevator accident case. The elevator was subject to a code violation because a “drop key” was available to tenants which allowed the elevator door to be opened when the elevator cab was not at that floor. Infant plaintiff fell into the open shaft after her nanny opened the door. The contract between Synoptic and the building owner raised questions of fact whether Espinal factors imposed liability on Synoptic:

A contracting party may not be liable in tort to a noncontracting third-party for its negligent performance unless it launches a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating an unreasonable risk of harm, the noncontracting third party detrimentally relies on its performances, or it completely displaces the other party’s duty to maintain premises safely … . …

Whether Synoptic made the repairs itself or was qualified to do so is irrelevant as to whether it owed plaintiff a duty. Rather its duty arises from its contractual obligation under the comprehensive management agreement obligating it to, inter alia, maintain the property and cause needed repairs to the elevator … .

Here, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs detrimentally relied on Synoptic to perform its contractual duties to maintain, cause repairs to be made to, and correct violations regarding the elevator … , and whether Synoptic launched a force of harm by providing residents access to the drop key to use the freight elevator … . According to … deposition, [testimony]  Synoptic had notice that residents were using the drop key to access the freight elevator. Further, at the very least, issues of fact exist as to whether it had notice that the repairs to address the violation were never completed. XX v Dunwell El. Elec. Indus., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06376, First Dept 11-5-20

 

, ,

THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE SLIP AND FALL, RENDERING THE FILING OF THE CLAIM UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim in this slip and fall case. The notice of intention to file a claim did not sufficiently identify the location of the slip and fall:

A claim to recover damages for personal injuries shall be filed and served upon the Attorney General within 90 days after the claim accrued, unless within 90 days, the claimant serves upon the Attorney General a written notice of intention to file a claim, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the Attorney General within two years after the accrual of such claim (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] … ). The Court of Claims Act requires a claim to specify, among other things, “the time when and place where” the claim arose (Court of Claims Act § 11[b] … ). A notice of intention to file a claim must also include a statement as to when and where the claim arose … . …

… [T]he notice of intention to file a claim failed to describe the location of the alleged accident with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) as the generalized description did not give notice as to where on the path the accident occurred … . Moreover, “‘[t]he State is not required to go beyond a claim or notice of intention in order to investigate an occurrence or ascertain information which should be provided pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11′” … . Further, lack of prejudice to the State is immaterial … .

As the notice of intention was deficient, it did not serve to extend the claimant’s time to file and serve a claim beyond the 90-day statutory period (see Court of Clams Act § 10[3] … ). Therefore, the claimant’s claim, which was filed approximately one year after accrual of the claim, was untimely … . Criscuola v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06241, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

,

DEFENDANT HOTEL PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; HOWEVER THE HOTEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED 100% OF THE FAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the evidence supported plaintiff’s verdict in this third-party assault action, but the defendant hotel should not have been found 100% at fault for failure to provide adequate security. 35% of the fault should have been apportioned to the shooter. Plaintiff was in a car in the hotel parking lot when he was shot by third-party defendant Williams:

… [The plaintiff made out a prima facie case of negligence at trial, and the jury’s finding in this regard was not against the weight of the evidence. The plaintiff established that the defendants employed almost no security measures in the parking lot where the shooting took place, and that in light of the history of criminal activity in the parking lot, the defendants should have been aware of the “likelihood of conduct on the part of third [parties]” that would “endanger the safety” of visitors to the parking lot … .

However, the apportionment of 100% of the fault in the happening of the shooting to the defendants was not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence … . An apportionment of 65% of the fault to the defendants and 35% of the fault to Williams better reflects a fair interpretation of the evidence … .  Carter v BMC-HOJO, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06237, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, , ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ON DEFENDANTS’ ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV), DRIVEN BY DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT, WHO WAS INTOXICATED, WHEN THE ATV CRASHED INTO A TREE; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE IS NO COMMON LAW “NEGLIGENT PROVISION OF ALCOHOL TO A MINOR” CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST ADDRESSED IN PLAINITIFFS’ REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there is no common law cause of action in New York for negligent provision of alcohol to a minor; (2) summary judgment should have been granted on the negligence cause of action against the estate of the infant driver and owner of the all terrain vehicle (ATV); and (3) the negligent supervision cause of action properly survived summary judgment. Infant plaintiff was a passenger on the ATV driven by defendants’ decedent, who was intoxicated, when the ATV struck a tree. The court noted that the two causes of action which plaintiffs addressed only in their reply papers were properly dismissed:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of Nicola Trivigno [ATV owner} and Frankie’s [defendants’ decedent’s] estate. A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault in order to establish his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law …  Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that Frankie operated the ATV while intoxicated in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192). Frankie’s negligence is imputed to Nicola Trivigno, who was the owner of the ATV which was being driven by Frankie with Nicola Trivigno’s permission … . Abtey v Trivigno, 2020 NY Slip Op 06233, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS FOUND OUT WELL INTO THE CONTRACT FOR GAS-MAIN WORK THAT THE REQUESTED INSURANCE COVERAGE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED; THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DEPENDED ON A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY NOT OCCUR; THE NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DAMAGES; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE SUPPORTED BY A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INSURANCE BROKER AND DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ causes of action for declaratory relief and negligent procurement were properly dismissed but the causes of action for breach of contract and fraud and negligent misrepresentation should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs contracted with Con Ed to work on a gas main and requested insurance coverage for the project from defendants. Well into the project plaintiffs learned that they were not insured and they procured coverage elsewhere for a much higher premium. The declaratory judgment cause of action sought a declaration that defendants would be responsible if plaintiffs are sued for damage done when plaintiffs were uninsured. Because that circumstance may never occur the declaratory judgment cause of action was properly dismissed. The negligent procurement cause of action was properly dismissed because there were no damages. The breach of contract cause of action should not have been dismissed because nominal damages will support it. The fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action should not have been dismissed because a special relationship between plaintiffs and the insurance broker had been sufficiently alleged:

” … Nominal damages allow vindication of those rights” … . … “[A]ctual damages are not an essential element” of a breach of contract cause of action … .

… “Where a special relationship develops between the broker and client, [the] broker may be liable . . . for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage” … . “… [T]hree ‘exceptional situations’ … may give rise to such a special relationship: ‘(1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) 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'” … . … The plaintiffs, at a minimum, claim to have suffered damages when they, on two occasions, made bids for long-term contracts to perform gas main repair work for Con Ed that were priced, in part, based on the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations as to the price of insurance coverage for that work. AB Oil Servs., Ltd. v TCE Ins. Servs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

,

HEARSAY EVIDENCE TO WHICH NO OBJECTION WAS MADE CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that hearsay evidence to which no objection was raised may be considered by the court. Here the hearsay was a GPS document which purported to show the location of a vehicle owned by defendant AT&T submitted to demonstrate its vehicle was not involved in the hit and run accident:

… Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the GPS document was inadmissible inasmuch as it was submitted to the court without the proper foundation and there was no information as to its reliability. AT & T appeals.

“[I]n civil cases, inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection may be considered and given such probative value as, under the circumstances, it may possess” … . The Supreme Court should not have denied AT & T’s motion on the ground that the GPS document was inadmissible since the plaintiff never raised that issue in opposition to the motion … .

In any event, the other evidence submitted by AT & T established, prima facie, that AT & T’s vehicle was not involved in the subject accident … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the identity of the driver or owner of the vehicle which struck him … . Costor v AT&T Servs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06098, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

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