You are here: / Negligence

IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV) ACCIDENT CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK TO PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER THEREBY PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSUMPTION-OF-THE-RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether assumption of the risk doctrine precluded plaintiff from recovery in this all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident case. There was a question whether the driver unreasonably increased the risk to plaintiff-passenger:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity ‘consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . Participants, however, are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of the motion raised triable issues of fact as to whether the manner in which the decedent was operating the ATV unreasonably enhanced the risk of injury and whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to this case … . Bulfamante v Bulfamante, 2025 NY Slip Op 02310, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Here there was no question that the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine could apply to plaintiff-passenger injured in an all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) accident.

Practice Point: Although the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine could apply to the plaintiff-passenger in this ATV accident case, there was a question of fact whether the doctrine was precluded because the driver unreasonably increased the risk.

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INCIDENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING OR INSPECTION PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this black-ice slip and fall case did not demonstrate when the area was last inspected or cleaned. Therefore the defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition. Proof of general cleaning and inspection practices is insufficient. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . “Accordingly, a property owner seeking summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case ‘has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence establishing, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged black ice condition. The defendant’s station cleaner provided only general information about his cleaning and inspection practices, and he failed to specify when he last cleaned or inspected the area where the plaintiff fell relative to the time of the accident … . Ravello v Long Is. R.R., 2025 NY Slip Op 02361, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: There are hundreds of reversals on this ground. A lack of constructive notice of a condition alleged to have caused a slip and fall can only be demonstrated by proof the area was actually cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning or inspection practices will not support a summary judgment.

 

,

A CONDITION WHICH MIGHT BE DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS CAN BECOME A “TRAP FOR THE UNWARY” WHEN A PERSON IS DISTRACTED; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WHEN HIS FOOT WAS CAUGHT IN A DEPRESSION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S FENCE AND THE SIDEWALK AS PLAINTIFF TRIED TO SEPARATE TWO FIGHTING DOGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted on the ground the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff was trying to separate two fighting dogs when his foot was caught in a depression between defendant’s fence and the sidewalk. The depression was about a foot wide and five or six inches deep. The court noted that a condition that might ordinarily be deemed open and obvious can be a “trap or the unwary” when a person is distracted:

“Property owners have a common-law duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition, but there is no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” … . However, “[w]hether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . “[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” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances surrounding the accident. In addition, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged defective condition … . Niyazov v Ditmas Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02349, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: This decision presents an example of when an “open and obvious” condition can be deemed a “trap for the unwary” for someone who is distracted. Here plaintiff was trying to separate two fighting dogs when his foot became caught in a five-or-six-inch-deep depression between defendant’s fence and the sidewalk.​

 

,

BECAUSE THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IS DEPENDENT UPON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH INFERENCES MUST BE DRAWN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS USUALLY NOT APPROPRIATE; HERE A GARAGE DOOR CLOSED OR FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was not a proper basis for granting plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff was injured when a garage door at defendant’s vehicle-repair shop closed on her as she left the customer waiting area. Plaintiff could have used an exterior door rather than the open garage door:

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident” … . It requires evidence of an event which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . “Since the circumstantial evidence allows but does not require the jury to infer that the defendant was negligent, res ipsa loquitur evidence does not ordinarily or automatically entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment, even if the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence is unrefuted” … . Summary judgment on the issue of liability should only be granted “in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases” where “the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of [the] defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not establish, by sufficiently convincing circumstantial proof, “that the inference of [the] defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Specifically, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficiently convincing circumstantial proof that the garage door and its mechanism were within the defendant’s exclusive control, and that the accident was not due to any fault on the part of the plaintiff … . “‘In those cases where conflicting inferences may be drawn, choice of inference must be made by the jury'” … . Hafeez v TT of Freeport, 2025 NY Slip Op 02327, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof requirements for liability under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.​

Practice Point: Because the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is dependent upon circumstantial evidence, summary judgment is rarely appropriate even where plaintiff’s evidence is unrefuted.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISON ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY, THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY HAD NOTICE OF A SOCIAL SERVICES CASEWORKER’S SEXUAL ABUSE OR PROPENSITY FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal of this Child Victims Act suit against the county, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether the county had actual or constructive notice that a Department of Social Services caseworker (Hoch) had sexually abused children or had a propensity for the sexual abuse of children. Therefore, the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie “negligent supervision” cause of action:

In the summer of 1993, the parents of 11-year-old Michael Nellenback had him designated as a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed in the care of Madison County’s Department of Social Services. The Madison County Department of Social Services assigned caseworker Karl Hoch to the Nellenback case. According to Mr. Nellenback, over the next three years, Mr. Hoch repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted him. It turned out that Mr. Hoch had sexually abused several other children to whose cases he was assigned.

In 2019, Mr. Nellenback filed suit against Madison County under the claim-revival provision of the Child Victims Act, alleging that that the County was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining Mr. Hoch. The sole issue on appeal is whether Mr. Nellenback raised a triable issue of fact on his negligent supervision claim. We hold that he did not: Even viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Nellenback, the evidence was insufficient to prove the County was on notice of the abuse and that it negligently placed Mr. Hoch in a position to cause harm. * * *

… [T]here was neither evidence that the County had any knowledge of Mr. Hoch’s abuse before the report of his abuse of another child in 1996, nor any evidence the County was aware of any conduct that could have alerted them to the potential for harm. Nellenback v Madison County, 2025 NY Slip Op 02263, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: This is a fact-specific opinion which analyzes the proof necessary to raise a question of fact whether a county social services department had constructive notice of its caseworker’s propensity for the sexual abuse of children. The majority, over an extensive dissent, determined the evidence relied on by the plaintiff was not sufficient to raise a question of fact.

 

,

OVERRULING A 2006 OPINION, A PLAINTIFF IN A DOG-BITE ACTION CAN NOW SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division in this dog-bite case, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reinstating the strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action, overruled the 2006 Court of Appeals case holding that there is no common-law liability for injury caused by a domestic animal:

Plaintiff Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence. She commenced this action to recover damages for her injuries, asserting causes of action sounding in strict liability and negligence. Both causes of action were dismissed, and Flanders asks us to reinstate them.

Under settled law, an owner of a domestic animal who has actual or constructive knowledge of their animal’s vicious propensities will be held strictly liable for harm caused as a result of those propensities. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Goodfellows had constructive knowledge of their dog’s vicious propensities, and so summary judgment should not have been granted to them on the strict liability cause of action.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair. Continued adherence to Bard therefore would not achieve the stability, predictability, and uniformity in the application of the law that the doctrine of stare decisis seeks to promote. Accordingly, we overrule Bard to the extent that it bars negligence liability for harm caused by domestic animals, and reinstate Flanders’s negligence cause of action. * * *

Our decision today means that there is a two-pronged approach to liability for harms caused by animals … .. A plaintiff who suffers an animal-induced injury therefore has a choice. If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may seek to hold them strictly liable. Or they can rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the defendant failed to exercise due care under the circumstances that caused their injury. Of course, a plaintiff might also assert both theories of liability … .  Flanders v Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: A plaintiff in a dog-bite case can now assert both strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action.

 

,

PLAINTIFF INSURER CAN SUE, AS A SUBROGEE, THE CLUB WHICH SERVED ALCOHOL TO ITS INSUREDS, WHO WERE VISIBLY INTOXICATED, PURSUANT TO THE DRAM SHOP ACT; THE INSUREDS WERE INJURED IN A SINGLE CAR ACCIDENT AND THE INSURER PAID OUT MORE THAN $500,000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Love, affirming Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff insurance company, Drive Insurance, could stand in the shoes of its insureds (as a subrogee) and sue the defendant club, Atlantis, pursuant to the Dram Shop  Act. Plaintiff alleged defendant served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated insureds who were then injured in a single-car accident. Plaintiff paid out over $500,000 to the insureds (named Aly, Perez and Abreu-Mateo):

… Drive Insurance alleged that Aly, Perez, and Abreu-Mateo were injured and the vehicle was damaged by Perez, who was visibly intoxicated at the time that Atlantis sold her alcohol. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that Drive Insurance was entitled to assert, as subrogee, a cause of action pursuant to the Dram Shop Act and that Drive Insurance stated a claim against Atlantis for violation of the Dram Shop Act. If the owner of the vehicle and the passengers have causes of action pursuant to the Dram Shop Act against Atlantis to recover damages arising out of the accident on the theory that Atlantis unlawfully served Perez when she was visibly intoxicated, causing the accident and their injuries, which causes of action do not fall into one of the exclusions discussed supra, then, since Drive Insurance alleges that it made payments as to the damaged vehicle and the injured passengers pursuant to the policy, Drive Insurance is entitled to stand in the shoes of its insured and seek indemnification from Atlantis based on Atlantis’s alleged violation of the Dram Shop Act. Drive N.J. Ins. Co. v RT Hospitality Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02188, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: An insurance company which has paid the insureds’ medical bills and vehicle-repair costs after a single-car accident, can, as a subrogee, sue the bar which served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated insureds under the Dram Shop Act.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this slip and fall did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the flower petals on the floor which caused plaintiff to slip and fall. Therefore defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. A lack of constructive notice can be demonstrated by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning practices is not sufficient to raise a question of fact on the issue:

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case must establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the fall or have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to remedy it … . “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 the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . In order to meet its prima facie burden “on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . “Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged condition … . The defendant did not submit any evidence with respect to specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question “or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed” … . The deposition testimony and affidavit submitted by the defendant as to general cleaning procedures were insufficient to establish lack of constructive notice … . Lisker v Vue Catering, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02196, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: This genre of reversals appeared monthly for many years. Now these decisions are few and far between. The key issue: to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall a defendant must prove the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning schedules is not enough.​

 

, ,

HOME DEPOT RENTED A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO DROVE THE TRUCK INTO A CROWD OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT; THE MOTION COURT IMPROPERLY TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED TRUE FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS, HERE THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE PROPERLY REFUTED BY AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS SUBMITTED BY HOME DEPOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against defendant Home Depot, which rented a truck to Saipov, referred to in the decision as a “terrorist,”  who drove the truck into a crowd of pedestrians and bicyclists. The First Department noted that the motion court improperly treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. The First Department further noted that, although allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true for analysis of a motion to dismiss, affidavits and other documents submitted by a defendant can properly refute the allegations made in the complaint, and did so here:

… “[F]actual allegations presumed to be true on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 may properly be negated by affidavits and documentary evidence” … .

Plaintiffs’ complaints allege that Home Depot negligently entrusted the vehicle to Saipov when it knew or should have known that his use of the pickup truck could be potentially dangerous to others, and that it should have refused to rent it to him. These allegations, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, do not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment. Moreover, documentary evidence as well as deposition testimony submitted by Home Depot conclusively refute these allegations.

… Home Depot established that it did not have “some special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar” to Saipov which would render his use of the truck “unreasonably dangerous” … . Grandelli v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-15-25

Practice Point: On a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true. However, those allegation can be negated by affidavits, depositions and other documents submitted by a defendant. The submission of such documents does not convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.

 

IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDIING IN A GOLF CART ON THE COURSE, BUT A GOLFER DRIVING A GOLF CART TO HER CAR IN THE COURSE PARKING LOT DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF A COLLISION WITH A CAR EXITING THE PARKING LOT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming one assumption-of-the-risk case and reversing the other, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined, in lawsuits against the owners of the golf courses, a golfer assumes the risk of being struck with a golf ball, but does not assume the risk of injury in a collision while driving a golf cart in the course parking lot:

This Court recently reaffirmed that the primary assumption of risk doctrine must be carefully circumscribed so as not to undermine the legislative comparative fault regime applicable to personal injury actions … . In these appeals, we clarify the scope of two important limitations on the doctrine: its inapplicability to unreasonably enhanced risks and its confinement to cases involving participation in athletics and recreation.

On the same day in June 2020, plaintiffs were injured in separate and very different accidents related to the sport of golf. Plaintiff David Katleski was struck by an errant golf ball while competing in a golf tournament. Plaintiff Mary E. Galante was struck by a car in the parking lot of a golf course before she began to play the course. For the reasons that follow, the primary assumption of risk doctrine precludes Katleski’s negligence claim because the risk of being struck by a mishit ball while golfing is inherent in the game and there is no evidence that the design of the course unreasonably enhanced that risk. Galante’s claim must be reinstated, however, because the primary assumption of risk doctrine has no application to a person who was not participating in a protected athletic or recreative activity at the time of their injury. Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02178, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: In lawsuits against the owners of golf courses: a golfer assumes the risk of being struck by an errant ball while riding in a golf cart on the course; but a golfer does not assume the risk of being struck by a car while driving a golf cart to her car in the course parking lot.

 

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