You are here: / Negligence
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE SECURITY-COMPANY CONTRACT AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON A SECURITY GUARD’S PROMISE TO RESPOND TO HER CALL FOR HELP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant security company’s (Sera’s) motion for summary judgment in this patient-assault case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a nurse at a healthcare facility, was assaulted by a patient. Sera argued it was only responsible for providing protection against intruders, not patients. Because the contract with Sera was ambiguous the court properly considered extrinsic evidence (deposition testimony) which indicated Sera responded to staff’s calls for help dealing with patient “altercations” or “fighting.” There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the Sera’s contract with the facility and whether plaintiff detrimentally relied on Sera to protect her from the assault. Questions of fact about Sera’s duty to plaintiff and the foreseeability of the assault were raised:

Given [the] testimony and the contractual language, the motion court properly denied summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant is liable to plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.

Similarly, the motion court also properly concluded that plaintiff raised questions of fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment as to whether Sera is liable to plaintiff under a theory of detrimental reliance based on plaintiff’s allegation that the Sera security guard promised to respond to plaintiff’s call for assistance, but failed to do so in a timely manner or failed to call the police promptly or at all (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140). Defendant’s security guard testified that he could not recall when he received the call from his colleague directing him to go to the floor where plaintiff worked, whether he was advised of any details of what was occurring, or how long it took him to get there. He further testified that he was trained to investigate calls prior to determining whether to call the police, and that, if a staff member called the security station about an incident, it was the Sera security guards’ responsibility to call 911 or the police when warranted. Kuti v Sera Sec. Servs., 2020 NY Slip Op 02153, First Dept 4-2-20

 

, ,

IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-manufacturer (Doka) of an allegedly defective ratchet was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff could not produce the ratchet (spoliation). The ratchet was used to move heavy concrete forms into place along a track. Allegedly the ratchets broke when extra pressure was placed on them when the forms became “bound” on the track. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he used his foot to increase the pressure on the ratchet when the form became bound. Because this was a design-defect case, and because the ratchets allegedly had broken before under similar circumstance, the defendant-manufacturer could present a defense and, therefore, the loss of the ratchet did not warrant dismissal of the complaint:

In cases like this, where the claim is based on a design defect (as opposed to a manufacturing defect), the absence of the product is not necessarily fatal to the defendant. As this Court has observed, a product’s design “possibly might be evaluated and the defect proved circumstantially” … . Circumstantial evidence could, one would imagine, be the testimony of someone involved in the design process, and plans or photographs of the product before it entered the stream of commerce. It could also, assuming that the missing product was one of multiple units manufactured using the same design, be another one of those units. * * *

Doka does not, in any meaningful way, argue why its inability to inspect the exact ratchet that plaintiff was using would prevent it from defending against the products liability claim. Rossi v Doka USA, Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 02098, First Dept 3-26-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE DUTY OF CARE AND KNOWLEDGE ELEMENTS OF A SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant property owner did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord. And defendants failed to eliminate questions of fact re: several elements of a slip and fall action:

… [T]he defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they had a duty to maintain in a reasonably safe condition the area of the parking lot where the plaintiff allegedly slipped … . They further failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they, or anyone on their behalf, caused, created, or exacerbated the ice condition upon which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell … , and whether they lacked constructive notice of the alleged ice condition … . Pinck-Jafri v Marsh Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02082, Second Dept 3-25-30

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

“A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected before 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, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. While the affidavit of the building superintendent referenced general inspection and cleaning practices, the defendant failed to submit evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the plaintiff’s accident occurred … . Griffin v PMV Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02068, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

,

NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR GAP-RELATED ACCIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, ordering a new trial, in a brief memorandum with no description of the facts, determined evidence of prior accidents involving the gap between the subway train and the platform should not have been admitted because there was no showing the conditions were the same. However the evidence of the non-mandatory gap standards were properly admitted:

In these circumstances, the trial court properly admitted plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding non-mandatory gap standards promulgated by the American Public Transit Association and the Public Transportation Safety Board … . However, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by admitting evidence of prior accidents at New York City subway stations involving the gap between the train car and platform in the absence of a showing that the relevant conditions of those accidents were substantially the same as plaintiff’s accident … . Daniels v New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 02027, CtApp 3-24-20

 

, ,

CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO PRESERVE PRE-ACCIDENT POLICE COMMUNICATIONS IN THIS POLICE-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WERE AWARE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ASSERT AN EMERGENCY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the City defendants should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence. The action stemmed from a traffic accident involving a police vehicle and the city defendants were put on notice they would assert an emergency defense by the notice of claim. But the pre-accident police communications were not preserved:

Defendants had an obligation to preserve the pre-accident audio recordings at the time they were destroyed because the Police Department (NYPD) internal report and plaintiff’s notice of claim, which attached the public police accident report, put defendants on notice that they would likely assert an emergency operation defense. Therefore, pre-accident audio communication between the dispatcher and the NYPD vehicle or officers involved in the accident should have been preserved in case it was needed for future litigation … . Under the circumstances presented, the imposition of an adverse inference charge would be an appropriate sanction … . Sanchez v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01970, First Dept 3-19-20

 

, ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined conflicting expert opinions in this medical malpractice action created a question of fact:

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The expert affirmations of two board-certified urologists submitted by the plaintiff contradicted the conclusion of the NYCHH defendants’ experts that the RUMC defendants and other defendants caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff’s experts concluded, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred intra-operatively during the prostatectomy performed by Surasi at Woodhull Medical Center. Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where, as here, the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions. “Such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury” … . Castillo v Surasi, 2020 NY Slip Op 01903, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

DRIVER/OWNER OF THE MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS CHAIN-REACTION REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE IS NOT LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the summary judgment motion by the driver/owner of the middle vehicle in this chain-reaction accident should have been granted. The rear-most driver pushed the stopped middle vehicle into the plaintiff’s vehicle:

“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence” … . ” Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation'” … . Thus, “[i]n a chain collision accident, the operator of the middle vehicle may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle” … . Bardizbanian v Bhuiyan, 2020 NY Slip Op 01897, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ‘RECKLESS DISREGARD’ STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this police-car traffic accident case should not have been granted. The Second Department held there was a question of fact whether the police officer was an “authorized emergency vehicle” triggering the “reckless disregard” standard of care:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when a vehicle she was operating collided with a police vehicle operated by the defendant Moira T. Larmour, a police officer. According to Larmour’s deposition testimony, the collision occurred when Larmour, who had been traveling west, made an “exaggerated u-turn” in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop of an unrelated vehicle for an allegedly expired inspection sticker and accelerated her vehicle, which spun on wet pavement and came into contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle, which was traveling east. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 qualifiedly exempts drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an “emergency operation” … . An “emergency operation” is defined under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b as, among other things, pursuing an “actual or suspected violator of the law.” Those privileges set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 include passing through red lights and stop signs, exceeding the speed limit, and disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions … . However, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), “[t]he foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his [or her] reckless disregard for the safety of others.” This is commonly referred to as the reckless disregard standard of care, which requires a plaintiff to establish that a police officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others in order to impose civil liability upon that officer … . Anderson v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2020 NY Slip Op 01894, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

SCHOOL BUS DRIVER ALLEGEDLY GESTURED TO PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A TURN AND PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS THEN STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the school bus driver gestured to plaintiff to make a turn and plaintiff’s car was then struck by another car (driven by defendant Mallon) going through the intersection:

“When one driver chooses to gratuitously signal to another person, indicating that it is safe to proceed or that the signaling driver will yield the right-of-way, the signaling driver assumes a duty to do so reasonably under the circumstances” … . Here, the School District failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not rely on the bus driver’s gesture that it was safe for the plaintiff to make his left turn … . The School District also failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s alleged negligent conduct in operating Mallon’s vehicle constituted an intervening and superseding act which broke the causal nexus between the bus driver’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries … . Pittman v Ball, 2020 NY Slip Op 01944, Second Dept 3-18-20

​

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