You are here: / Negligence
,

EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED ONCE A MONTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact about the cause of the fall (cracks in the asphalt), whether the defendant had notice of the condition, and whether the defect was trivial. Evidence the area was inspected once a month was no sufficient. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The defendant … failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition of the driveway … . To meet its initial burden to show a lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer probative evidence demonstrating a proximity in time between when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … . The affidavit of the defendant’s maintenance worker submitted in support of the defendant’s motion referred only to his general inspection practices but did not refer to any specific inspection in the area of the plaintiff’s fall relative to the date of the incident. Another employee of the defendant averred in an affidavit that she had inspected the driveway approximately seven weeks prior to the plaintiff’s fall and found all routes were clear of obstructions. She also averred that the defendant’s maintenance department inspected the driveway at least once per month. This evidence was insufficient to establish, prima facie, lack of constructive notice … .

The defendant also failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the alleged defect was trivial. The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the cracked condition of the driveway was trivial as a matter of law, and thus, nonactionable … . Croshier v New Horizons Resources, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03892, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

,

THE LANDLORD AND PROPERTY MANAGER DEMONSTRATED THE POWER-OPERATED DOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY STRUCK PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the landlord (North Shore Towers) and the property manager (Greenthal Management) demonstrated the power-operated door which allegedly struck plaintiff as she walked through the doorway was not defective. Therefore the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

A landowner has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition to prevent the occurrence of foreseeable injuries … . “In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of an allegedly defective condition upon property, it must be established that a defective condition existed and that the landowner affirmatively created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … .

Here, North Shore Towers and Greenthal Management established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject door did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition … .. In support of their motion, they submitted evidence that they conducted daily inspections of the door, that the door activating system had been fully replaced two months before the incident, that, after the new system had been installed, there had been no complaints of the door malfunctioning prior to the incident, and that the door functioned in accordance with industry standards. Alkon v North Shore Towers Apts. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03883, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

,

WATER VALVE CAP OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WHILE PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE STREET WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court but on different grounds, determined the water valve cap over which infant plaintiff allegedly slipped (tripped) and fell while playing basketball in the street was a nonactionable trivial defect. Supreme Court had granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on the ground the city did not receive written notice of the defect:

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury … . However, a property owner “may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip” … . “In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury'” … .

“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” … . “Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s father, photographs, and a transcript of the infant plaintiff’s deposition testimony describing the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. This evidence established, prima facie, that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law and did not possess the characteristics of a trap or nuisance, and therefore, was not actionable … . Acevedo v City of Yonkers, 2020 NY Slip Op 03881, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

CONTRACTOR WHICH WAXED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contractor which waxed the floor where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because it was not demonstrated the contractor launched an instrument of harm (Espinal factor):

“Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … . “A contractor may be said to have assumed a duty of care and, thus, be potentially liable in tort, to third persons when the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm” … . “Where such a duty is alleged, a defendant contractor moving for summary judgment has the burden of eliminating all material issues of fact, and establishing conclusively, that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by negligently creating the dangerous or defective condition complained of” … .

“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge’ that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . “In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … . Union v Excel Commercial Maintenance, 2020 NY Slip Op 03942, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF A SIDEWALK UTILITIES GRATE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact about whether: (1) a sidewalk grate belonged to the abutting landowner (11 Madison) or the utility (Con Ed); and (2) whether the installation of the grate by the prior owner of the property constituted a special use of the sidewalk:

The record does not demonstrate conclusively that the owner of the sidewalk vault grate on which plaintiff Marie Saez allegedly tripped was defendant Con Ed, rather than the 11 Madison defendants, who owned the property abutting the sidewalk where the grate was located. There is an affidavit by the president of defendant Sapir Realty Management Corp. averring that the grates were already installed when the 11 Madison defendants acquired the property in 2003 and that the 11 Madison defendants had never been advised by Con Ed that they had any responsibility for maintaining the grates over Con Ed’s utility vaults or presented with any plans concerning the grates. There is also evidence that the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor in interest had purchased and installed the non-standard vault gratings, and there is a note on the plot plan for the vault construction stating that this entity was to “supply, install and maintain” the non-standard gratings it had requested. As issues of fact exist whether Con Ed or the 11 Madison defendants owned the gratings, it cannot be concluded that Con Ed was responsible for maintaining the gratings and the area around them in safe condition … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor’s installation of the non-standard vault grates constitutes a special use of the sidewalk by these defendants. Although there is evidence that they had no access to the grates and the vault, the evidence is not conclusive. Moreover, there is evidence that the transformers in the vaults provided electrical service solely to their property … . Saez v Sapir Realty Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03863, First Dept 7-9-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, I.E., FINDING THE DEFECT TRIVIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this staircase slip and fall case should not have been granted. The defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of salt (used to melt ice) on the steps. Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted the motion on the ground the salt constituted a trivial defect because the parties did not raise that issue:

“To 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 defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … .Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, in support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the part-time porter and the deposition testimony of the property manager of the defendant’s building, which merely provided evidence as to the defendant’s general cleaning practices, with no evidence as to when the area at issue was last inspected or cleaned prior to the accident.

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion on the ground that the presence of the salt on the step at issue constituted a trivial defect since the parties did not raise this issue … . Johnson v 101-105 S. Eighth St. Apts. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03773, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A FRYE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, THE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR THE ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this rear-end collision traffic accident case should have been granted. Although Supreme Court was correct in finding that a Frye hearing was not necessary because biomechanical engineering is an accepted scientific theory, no proper foundation was laid for the defense expert’s (Toosi’s) testimony:

The court properly relied upon a decision of this Court and a decision of the Appellate Term, First Department, in determining that biomechanical engineering is a scientific theory accepted in the field … . …

Separate and distinct from the Frye inquiry is the ” admissibility question applied to all evidence—whether there is a proper foundation—to determine whether the accepted methods were appropriately employed in a particular case'” … . “The question is whether the expert’s opinion sufficiently relates to existing data or is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish that Toosi’s opinions related to existing data and were the result of properly applied accepted methodology … . Thus, Toosi’s testimony should have been precluded. Guerra v Ditta, 2020 NY Slip Op 03771, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED RAPE OF PLAINTIFF ON SCHOOL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted for the negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action against the Department of Education stemming from the the sexual assault of the plaintiff on school grounds:

The DOE had actual knowledge, within the statutory period or a reasonable time thereafter, of the facts constituting [the] claims, which arose as a result of the alleged rape that occurred on September 28, 2017 … . Furthermore, in light of the DOE’s actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims of negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff met her initial burden of establishing a lack of substantial prejudice to the DOE in maintaining a defense with respect to those claims … . In opposition, the DOE failed to make a particularized evidentiary showing that it would be substantially prejudiced if the late notice with respect to those claims was allowed … . “[W]here there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . Doe v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03768, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER, ANSWERING A CALL, ACTED RECKLESSLY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant police officer (McMahon) acted recklessly in this traffic accident case. The officer, responding to a call, passed a line of cars by straddling the yellow line without siren or lights and struck plaintiff as plaintiff was attempting to make a left turn:

“[T]he reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b). Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence”… . Conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) includes disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions … .

Here, the defendants established that the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 was applicable to McMahon’s conduct because he was responding to a radio call of a motor vehicle accident with unknown injuries … . However, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because their moving papers presented a triable issue of fact regarding whether McMahon was reckless in straddling the double-yellow line to pass a row of vehicles without using his warning siren or lights when he collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle … . Rodriguez-Garcia v Southampton Police Dept., 2020 NY Slip Op 03813, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, ,

NEW THEORY PRESENTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s lack-of-informed-consent cause of action in this medical malpractice case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff had alleged a new theory in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment which should not have been considered because the theory was not discernable from the pleadings:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for lack of informed consent insofar as asserted against him. The defendant made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against him through the affidavit of his expert, the deposition testimony, and the written consent form signed by the plaintiff, which demonstrated that the defendant disclosed to the plaintiff the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure … .

In opposition, the plaintiff alleged, for the first time, a new theory that the procedure performed by the defendant exceeded the scope of her consent in specific respects, a theory that was not referred to when the plaintiff’s counsel questioned the defendant at his deposition. The general rule is that ” [a] plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars'” … . If the theory is discernable from the pleadings, it may be considered … , especially if the theory is referred to in the depositions … . In this case, the assertion of the new theory was not discernable from the pleadings, nor alluded to by the plaintiff’s counsel when deposing the defendant … . Therefore, that theory should not have been considered. Larcy v Kamler, 2020 NY Slip Op 03652, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

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