You are here: / Negligence
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, IN THE FACE OF AWARDING DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, setting aside the verdict for future damages and ordering a new trial on that issue, determined the awards for past pain and suffering and future medical expenses rendered the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering a material deviation from reasonable compensation:

Plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the verdict was inconsistent because the claim was raised after the jury had been discharged. However, where the jury verdict awards plaintiff damages for past pain and suffering and future medical expenses, but declines to award damages for future pain and suffering, the verdict on future pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation … . Paucay v D.P. Group Gen. Contrs./Devs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05611, First Dept 10-8-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNERS’ ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF ACKNOWLEDGED THE HOME WAS VACANT WHEN THE POLICY WAS PURCHASED AND AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE AND THE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR VACANT PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in this “disclaimed coverage” case should have been granted. Plaintiff homeowner acknowledged the home had been vacant and was vacant at the time of the fire. Plaintiff’s allegation that the insurance agent was aware the house was vacant when the policy was purchased was rejected because plaintiff was deemed to have read the policy (which excluded coverage for vacant property):

The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the policy only provided coverage if the premises were used as a residence by the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs never resided at the premises during the policy period … . * * *

“The element of justifiable reliance is ‘essential’ to any fraud claim” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that any reliance by [plaintiff] on an alleged misrepresentation made by [the insurance agent] was not justifiable since [plaintiff] testified that he received a copy of the policy when it was issued in August 2010, and again in 2011, when it was renewed … . …

The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing [the negligence] cause of action by submitting evidence which demonstrated that [plaintiff] only made a general request for homeowner’s insurance, and did not specifically request coverage for premises that were not owner occupied … , and that no special relationship existed between the parties … . Waknin v Liberty Ins. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05551, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE PROPER PARTY TO SUE WAS ARGUABLY NOT EXCUSABLE, THE DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although the excuse for not filing on time was not a good one, counsel’s failure to identify the proper party to sue, the defendant had timely knowledge of the nature of the action:

Although counsel’s error in identifying the proper party was arguably not excusable, the error was not due to any fault or delay on the part of petitioner, and “[t]he failure to set forth a reasonable excuse is not, by itself, fatal to the application” … . This is particularly true where, as here, the record shows that respondents received timely and actual notice of the essential facts underlying plaintiff’s claim … .

Here, the incident report gave respondents actual knowledge of the pertinent facts constituting the claim. The report makes clear that petitioner fell on the sidewalk, and the photographs contained in the report show that the sidewalk is cracked and raised, presenting a tripping hazard … . Furthermore, according to petitioner’s 50-h testimony, her fall was notable enough that a security guard immediately called his supervisor to the scene, and there is no indication that respondents are prejudiced by the delay … . English v Board of Trustees of the Fashion Inst. of Tech., 2020 NY Slip Op 05450, First Dept 10-6-20

 

,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A RECURRING ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had constructive knowledge of a recurring icy condition where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. Plaintiff slipped after leaving a tenant’s apartment. The tenant testified at a deposition:

… [P]laintiff submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the tenant that she had treated on the day of the incident. The tenant testified that, “basically[,] what happens is there’s a lot of runoff from the ground over here. When the snow melts the whole area gets flooded and then it freezes, and then you have a solid sheet of ice pretty much over these last few blocks of the sidewalk and then down in the end, right at the end where the parking lot meets the sidewalk. I’ve actually contacted management many times in regards to that issue.” The tenant further testified that, when he contacted the property manager on such occasions prior to the incident, he was told that there was nothing that could be done because “the snow melts, thaws and freezes, and there’s nothing [*2]they can do about water.” He also noted that he had been living at the property for 11 years, and no steps had been taken during that time to eliminate water from pooling on the sidewalk. Monnin v Clover Group, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05325, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the emergency doctrine should not have been granted in this automobile accident case:

A white van that was exiting the Parkway proceeded to the stop sign where the off-ramp intersects with Greenleaf Road and then made a sudden left-hand turn in front of the vehicle that defendant was operating. Defendant tried to avoid the van by braking and swerving to the right. In doing so, he maneuvered his vehicle the wrong way onto the off-ramp, where it collided with the driver’s side of the vehicle operated by plaintiff. …

“In general, the issues whether a qualifying emergency existed and whether the driver’s response thereto was reasonable are for the trier of fact” … , and this case is no exception to the general rule. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was faced with a qualifying sudden and unexpected emergency, we conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion of establishing that defendant’s conduct was appropriate under the circumstances … . Schwallie v Farnan, 2020 NY Slip Op 05316, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING A LIMOUSINE BUS WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ADDRESS ON APPEAL THE ASPECT OF THE DECISION WHICH DISMISSED THE FAILURE-TO-PROVIDE-SEATBELTS CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE ANY CHALLENGE TO THAT ASPECT OF THE DISMISSAL WAS ABANDONED BY PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint in this traffic accident case, noted that the plaintiffs’ failure to address an aspect of the decision granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment constituted an abandonment of any challenge to that portion of the decision. The motion court had dismissed the complaint in its entirety including plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging defendants were negligent in not providing seatbelts for the limousine in which plaintiff was a passenger. However the seatbelt ruling was not challenged by the plaintiffs on appeal. Therefore Supreme Court’s dismissal of the seatbelt cause of action remained in effect:

Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on application of the emergency doctrine. ” ‘The existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a driver’s response thereto generally constitute issues of fact’ ” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that “whether the emergency doctrine precludes liability presents a question of fact and, therefore, summary judgment for defendants . . . was inappropriate” … .

We note, however, that the court also granted that part of defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts on the ground that defendants were under no duty to do so. Plaintiffs failed to brief any argument with respect to the dismissal of that claim, thereby abandoning any challenge to that part of the order … . We therefore modify the order by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint except insofar as the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts. VanEpps v Mancuso, 2020 NY Slip Op 05359, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LOOSE PANEL ON A SELF CHECK OUT MACHINE IN DEFENDANT’S STORE; THE PANEL ALLEGEDLY FELL OFF AND INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (BJ’s) motion for summary judgment in this personal injury case should have been granted. There was insufficient evidence BJ’s had constructive notice that a metal panel on a self-check-out machine could detach and fall off. It was alleged plaintiff’s foot was injured by the panel:

It is well established that, “[t]o 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 [a] defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . Here, defendants’ submissions on the motions established that no one, including plaintiff, observed any defect in the machine or the metal panel that injured plaintiff … . Indeed, defendants’ evidence demonstrated that the self-check-out machine was inspected and tested on the morning of the incident, that an employee was stationed directly in front of the machine prior to the incident and observed nothing abnormal about the machine, and that plaintiff herself had observed nothing abnormal about the machine while standing in line and waiting to use it. Although the deposition testimony of one of BJ’s employees referenced that the employee had previously “adjust[ed]” a panel on an unidentified self-check-out machine at some time, nothing in that testimony indicated that BJ’s had notice of a defective or dangerous condition of the machine that injured plaintiff. Ginsberg v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05350, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

,

DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant failed to yield the right of way when entering the roadway from a parking lot:

“It is well settled that a driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the drivers of other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield. Because [defendant] was entering the roadway from a parking lot, []he was required to yield the right-of-way to [plaintiff’s] vehicle” ( … see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143). Here, plaintiffs met their initial burden of proof with respect to defendant’s negligence by submitting, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony recounting the circumstances of the accident and the corroborating police report, which established as a matter of law that defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143, breached his duty to operate his vehicle with due care, and thereby caused the accident … .

… Defendant’s claimed inability to recall the circumstances of the accident “is not affirmative proof that the event did not happen[ and is] . . . thus insufficient to create an issue of fact” … . Moreover, while defendant made inconsistent statements about his actions before pulling into the street from the parking lot, those statements offered no basis for a rational factfinder to excuse his violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 or negate his responsibility for the accident … . Kowalyk v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05346, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

PLAINTIFF GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING AND FALLING ON A LANDING WET FROM RAIN AT THE TWELFTH HOLE OF DEFENDANT GOLF COURSE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff assumed the risk of slipping and failing on a stairway landing wet from rain. The stairway is used to accessed the tee box on the twelfth hole of defendant golf course:

“As a general rule, participants properly may be held to have consented, by their participation, to those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation” … . ” ‘It is not necessary to the application of assumption of [the] risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results’ ” … . “The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, however, will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” … . …

Here, defendants established on their motion that plaintiff was an experienced golfer who had played defendants’ golf course several times in the past … . Moreover, defendants demonstrated that, at the time of the incident, plaintiff knew that the course was still wet from rain that had just fallen, and that he was familiar with the stairway in question, having just used it moments before his accident. Conrad v Holiday Val., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05333, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address the plaintiff’s dental malpractice claim with respect to one tooth (tooth number 28). Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted on that claim:

Even assuming, as defendant claims, that plaintiff would still have had to undergo future dental work had these six teeth been saved, and that any disfigurement was not fairly attributable to defendant because plaintiff opted to have another dentist install her dentures, these facts do not negate the primary injury claimed by plaintiff — the unnecessary loss of these teeth. It is immaterial that plaintiff’s expert did not indicate that he or she had reviewed plaintiff or her husband’s deposition testimony, as review of these documents was not necessary to make an informed determination about the appropriateness of treatment. * * *

However, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted insofar as plaintiff’s claims are directed at tooth number 28, because plaintiff’s expert failed to raise an issue of fact regarding a departure of care with respect to this tooth. Castro v Yakobashvilli, 2020 NY Slip Op 05281, First Dept 10-1-20

 

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