You are here: / Negligence
,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, PROVIDED AN OPINION IN THE AREA OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, THE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATED THE EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER THE OPINION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation raised a question of fact in this failure-to-diagnose medical malpractice case, even though the affirmation dealt with an area of medicine outside of the expert’s area of practice (general surgery):

… [T]he plaintiffs’ expert’s affirmation was not lacking in probative value because the plaintiffs’ expert was board certified in general surgery rather than internal medicine. A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field; however, the expert must be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable … . “Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . “Where no such foundation is laid, the expert’s opinion is of no probative value'” … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ expert’s affirmation sufficiently established that the plaintiffs’ expert was possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge and experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered was reliable … . In particular, the expert demonstrated that he was qualified to render an opinion regarding the symptomology of temporal arteritis, which he characterized as a relatively common disease of the arteries, and as to whether a proper examination and investigation of [the] symptoms was conducted in accordance with accepted medical practices. Kiernan v Arevalo-Valencia, 2020 NY Slip Op 03388, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON A ROOF WHEN HE ALLEGEDLY CONTACTED AN ELECTRIC WIRE LEADING TO THE HOME AND WAS KILLED; THE UTILITIES’ (CON EDISON’S) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ON THE GROUND IT OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the Con Edison defendants in this electrocution case should not have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff was working on a roof when he alleged came into contact with an electric wire attached to the home and was killed. Con Edison argued it did not owe a duty to plaintiff’s decedent:

“[T]he existence and scope of a duty is a question of law requiring courts to balance sometimes competing public policy considerations” …. Contrary to Con Edison’s contention, it failed to establish that it owed no duty to the decedent … . Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff alleged that Con Edison authorized the installation of an improper and non code-compliant connection between its electrical lines and the homeowner’s electrical system, such actions gave rise to Con Edison’s duty to the decedent who reasonably could be expected to come into contact with the property’s electrical wires … . Thus, Con Edison did not establish that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for negligence. Sucre v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03377, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

, , ,

THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ADDRESSED THE RELEVANT ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT; THE MEDICAL RECORDS DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE FOR DELAY WAS NOT ADEQUATE, THE DEFECT DID NOT REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The court noted that the medical records submitted for the first time in a reply were properly considered because the respondents addressed the relevant issues at oral argument. Both the majority and the dissent noted that the excuse for failure to timely file the notice of claim was inadequate but that defect did not require denial of the application. The majority found claimant demonstrated respondents were not prejudiced by the delay. The dissent disagreed with the majority’s finding that the medical records demonstrated respondents had timely notice of the nature of the claim:

… [W]e reject the contention of respondents and the dissent that it is inappropriate under the circumstances of this case to consider the medical records submitted by claimant for the first time in his reply papers. In general, ” [t]he function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds [or evidence] for the motion [or application]’ ” … . “This rule, however, is not inflexible, and a court, in the exercise of its discretion, may consider a claim or evidence offered for the first time in reply where the offering party’s adversaries responded to the newly presented claim or evidence” … . …

… “[T]he medical records . . . evince that [respondents’] medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted an[ ] injury on [claimant]’ ” … . The medical records indicate that, following the surgical skin graft procedure, claimant developed swelling beneath the dressings that became constrictive of blood flow to the leg and ultimately caused necrosis, and that respondents’ medical staff, for various reasons, had failed to recognize the ischemic nature of the leg and claimant’s development of compartment syndrome, thereby eventually necessitating partial amputation of the leg … . We thus conclude that respondents timely acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Dusch v Erie County Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 03351, Fourth Dept 7-12-20

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PROPER BURDEN OF PROOF EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this asbestos -injury case should not have been granted and, alternatively, even if the motion were properly granted, leave to renew should have been granted based on additional evidence:

In connection with a motion for summary judgment in an action based on exposure to asbestos, defendant has the initial burden of showing “unequivocally” that its product could not have contributed to the causation of decedent’s asbestos-related injury … .

Defendant Burnham failed to sustain its initial burden of demonstrating that its products could not have contributed to decedent’s mesothelioma. Decedent’s testimony identified defendant as the manufacturer of greenhouses in which he worked and cited three possible sources of asbestos: transite benches in the greenhouses, window glazing and the greenhouse boiler. Burnham provided no evidence demonstrating that its products could not have been the source of the asbestos that caused decedent’s illness. It only pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof, which was insufficient to meet its burden … . Even if the burden had shifted, plaintiffs’ evidence in opposition raised an issue of fact as to whether Burnham had sold, distributed, and recommended asbestos-containing products such as those used in plaintiffs’ family’s gardening business. While hearsay, that evidence could be considered by the court since it was not the sole basis of the opposition … .

Alternatively, even if the summary judgment motion had been properly granted, the court should have granted leave to renew in the interests of fairness and justice since plaintiffs presented an affidavit of decedent’s estranged brother, which supplied crucial evidence linking decedent’s illness to Burnham’s products. Fischer v American Biltrite, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03277, First Dept 6-11-20

 

,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LEASE DID NOT OBLIGATE THE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE AREA AND NO STATUTORY VIOLATION WAS ALLEGED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff allegedly slipped on ice which formed from a leak in a pipe in a walk-in freezer. The lease did not require the landlord to maintain the freezer. No statutory violation was alleged:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, where the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the plaintiff does not allege the violation of a statute, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were an out-of-possession landlord that was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly dangerous condition … . The lease in this case specified that the “Landlord’s Obligations do not include the performance nor the payment of the costs for . . . the maintenance, repair and/or replacement of Freezer System or the replacement of the Refrigeration System at any time.” Mallet v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03220, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; SANCTIONS FOR THE LOSS OF THE LIGHT FIXTURE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE THE BENT PIPE TO WHICH THE FIXTURE WAS ATTACHED WAS PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff was injured when a light fixture fell on him. The pipe to which the fixture was attached was bent and was preserved by the defendant. The light fixture, which was same as several others at the site, was not preserved. Because contractors were working at the site, and the pipe securing the light fixture was bent. it could not be said defendant exercised exclusive control over the fixture. The Second Department went on to find that sanctions for the loss of the light fixture were not warranted because the bent pipe was saved and the light fixture itself was not crucial evidence:

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine which is submitted to the finder of fact when the accident arises out of an event which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, the accident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and it was not due to a voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . The Court of Appeals has held that “only in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment or a directed verdict. That would happen only when the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Cantey v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03213, Second dept 6-10-20

 

, , ,

RARE CASE WHERE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS APPROPRIATELY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined this was a rare case where summary judgment was appropriate on a Labor Law 200, common-law negligence cause of action:

Here, PSJV, the entities responsible for site cleanliness and trade coordination, at a time when the project was open to the elements, covered a recessed area of the third floor, where rainwater regularly collected, with non-waterproof planking, and never inspected it for water accumulation. Further, PSJV did not warn plaintiff or his employer that he was working under the recessed area, and when he drilled into the second floor ceiling to affix electrical equipment, the sludgy, oily water poured down onto him, causing him to lose his balance and injure himself. Thus, plaintiffs made a prima showing that the accident occurred due to a defective condition on the premises of which PSJV had actual notice, having caused and created it … . In response, PSJV failed to adduce credible evidence that anyone else, including plaintiff electrician, negligently caused the accident … . Langer v MTA Capital Constr. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03171, First Dept 6-3-20

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, A NURSE ASSAULTED BY A PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT, WAS ENTITLED TO DEPOSE THE DEFENDANT TREATING PSYCHIATRISTS WITH RESPECT TO ANY NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION; THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ATTEND THE DEPOSITIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant-psychiatrists’ depositions should have been granted. Plaintiff, a nurse in a psychiatric facility, was seriously injured in an assault by a patient. She sought to depose the defendant psychiatrists who had treated the patient. Although the defendants may legitimately invoke the doctor-patient privilege, there maybe be non-privileged information which can be the subject of a deposition. The proper procedure is for the defendants to attend the depositions and invoke the privilege where appropriate:

Generally, “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by . . . a party” (CPLR 3101[a][1]). However, even relevant discovery is subject to preclusion if the requested information is privileged (see CPLR 3101[b] …).

Information relating to the nature of medical treatment and the diagnoses made, including “information communicated by the patient while the physician attends the patient in a professional capacity, as well as information obtained from observation of the patient’s appearance and symptoms,” is privileged and may not be disclosed (… see CPLR 4504; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c][1] …). However, “[t]he physician-patient privilege generally does not extend to information obtained outside the realms of medical diagnosis and treatment” … .

… [T]he plaintiff is entitled to inquire into any nonprivileged information regarding the patient … . …

… [T]he prospect that a witness may be asked questions at a deposition as to which an objection based on privilege may be asserted is not a proper reason for declining to appear for a deposition.  Jayne v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 03101,Second Dept 6-3-20

 

,

THE EXISTENCE OF A HANDRAIL ON THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL ON THE RIGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case should not have been granted. The fact that there was a handrail on the left did not warrant summary judgment because there was no handrail on the right:

Plaintiff … was injured when, while descending the right side of the exterior staircase of the subject premises, she slipped and when she tried to grab onto a handrail, there was no right-sided handrail. A triable issue of fact thus exists as to whether the absence of a required handrail on that side of the staircase was a proximate cause of the accident … . Defendants’ argument that the missing handrail on the right side of the staircase did not proximately cause plaintiff’s fall since she chose not to use the available left-side handrail, is directed to the issue of comparative negligence … . Gil v Margis Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03089, First Dept 5-28-20

 

, , ,

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE PURSUANT TO A 2019 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION; VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined: (1) a 2019 Court of Appeals decision clarified the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s duty to keep sidewalks safe, notwithstanding any maintenance arrangement with a tenant; (2) although the plaintiff was required to allege the defendant violated the NYC Administrative Code and failed to do so, plaintiff could rely on the Code provision in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion; and (3) plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the ice condition existed before the alleged storm in progress at or near the time of the fall:

… [T]he court’s determination that defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he is an out-of-possession landlord is no longer sound in light of the Court of Appeals’s decision in Xiang Fu He v Troon Mgt., Inc. (34 NY3d 167 [2019]). …[E]ven if … plaintiff was required to plead defendant’s violation of Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-210 – which he undisputedly failed to do – plaintiff’s reliance thereon for the first time in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was permissible, given that doing so did not raise any new theory of liability or prejudice … . Herrera v Vargas, 2020 NY Slip Op 03082, First Dept 5-28-20

 

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