You are here: / Negligence
,

COMPLAINT SUING A RETAILER WHICH SOLD AMMUNITION TO A 20-YEAR-OLD WHO SHOT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the complaint alleging defendant retailer negligently sold ammunition to a 20-year old (Klocek) who shot plaintiff’s decedent properly survived a motion to dismiss. The action was not precluded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA, 15 USC 7901):

… [A] qualified civil liability action [prohibited by the PLCAA] does not include … “an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se” … or “an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought” … . …

… [P]laintiffs allege that defendant violated 18 USC § 922 (b) (1) and Penal Law § 270.00 (5) when defendant allegedly sold “handgun ammunition” to Klocek, who was 20 years old at the time. The federal statute prohibits the sale or delivery of ammunition “other than . . . ammunition for a shotgun or rifle” to anyone the seller or deliverer “knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age” (18 USC § 922 [b] [1]). The state statute prohibits the sale of ammunition “designed exclusively for use in a pistol or revolver” to anyone not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver (Penal Law § 270.00 [5]). Plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish that defendant committed a predicate offense under 15 USC § 7903 (5) (A) (ii) and, as a result, establish that this action is not a qualified civil liability action and not subject to immediate dismissal. King v Klocek, 2020 NY Slip Op 05619, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT OWE A SPECIAL DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WHO CALLED 911 DURING A SNOW STORM AFTER HIS CAR HAD BECOME STUCK AND WAS FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR THREE DAYS LATER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the municipality was entitled to summary judgment in this wrongful death action. Plaintiff’s decedent’s car was stuck in snow during a snow storm. He called 911 three times over the course of seven hours and was found dead in his car three days later:

Preliminarily, we conclude that, during the events that led to decedent’s unfortunate death, defendants were acting in a governmental capacity … . “Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to furnish police protection, this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created” … . … According to plaintiff, a special relationship was formed in this case by … the voluntary assumption of a duty of care by defendants. That method requires plaintiff to establish “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Here, only the first and fourth elements are at issue. We conclude that defendants met their burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that there was no voluntary assumption of a duty of care, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendants assumed, through promise or action, any duty to act on decedent’s behalf … . … [D]efendants also met their initial burden by establishing that any alleged reliance upon representations made by defendants or their agents was not justifiable, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard … . Bauer v County of Erie, 2020 NY Slip Op 05623, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COUNTY WAS AFFIRMATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The county demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition and was not affirmatively negligent:

The complaint alleged that a dangerous or defective condition existed as a result of defendant’s negligent snow and ice removal operations and procedures, and its failure to provide “a means of ingress/egress with a handrail.” …

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition as required by Chautauqua County Local Law No. 4-09 … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether such prior written notice was given … . Further, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding the applicability of an exception to the prior written notice requirement, i.e., as relevant here, that defendant “affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence” … . A municipality” ‘may not be held liable for the mere passive failure to remove all snow and ice’ ” or to install a handrail because “[s]uch acts are acts of omission rather than affirmative acts of negligence” … . Here, plaintiff’s submissions establish only defendant’s alleged “nonfeasance, as opposed to affirmative negligence,” and the exception to the prior written notice requirement for affirmative acts of negligence therefore does not apply … . Brockway v County of Chautauqua, 2020 NY Slip Op 05659, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

, ,

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

 

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