You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE TRUST-ASSET-SUBSTITUTION AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTING LIFE INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN ASSETS, WAS SUBJECT TO EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1); THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT RELEASING THE TRUSTEE FROM LIABILITY WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND THE TRUSTEE IS LIABLE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WERE PAID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the 1992 agreement substituting life insurance for trust assets was covered by Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) 11-1.7(a)(1) and the trustee, which owned the policies, was liable in negligence for failing to ensure the premiums were paid (the policies had lapsed). The provision of the trust-asset-substitution agreement exonerating the trustee from liability was invalid as against public policy. The matter was remitted for a determination of damages:

The Surrogate’s Court found that the 1992 agreement created a “new trust agreement” funded in part by the life insurance policies, which was not part of the testamentary trust, and therefore not governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a). The court further found that the agreement released the trustee from any promises relating to “the substitution of property,” which relieved the trustee of any “liability to monitor the investment owed to the trust,” released the trustee and any successor trustee “from any future lawsuit,” and released the trustee of any fiduciary duty to act upon Robert’s default in paying insurance premiums.

Contrary to the conclusion of the Surrogate’s Court, the agreement did not create a new trust. Rather, the agreement provided for the substitution of testamentary trust property with life insurance policies. The petitioner included the life insurance policies in its final account of the testamentary trusts as worthless assets. There is no reference to any separate accounting for the life insurance policies as part of a separate trust. Thus, the duty of the trustee was governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1), which states that the exoneration of a testamentary trustee from liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, diligence, and prudence is contrary to public policy. Matter of Wilkinson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO THE OPEN-COURT STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF $8,875,000; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS RATIFIED THE STIPULATION BY FAILING TO TIMELY OBJECT TO IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that defendants (the Infiniti defendants) were bound by an open-court stipulated settlement of $8,875,000 in this personal injury case. The attorneys had apparent authority to bind the defendants. And the defendants ratified the stipulation by failing to timely object to it:

I write to highlight the fundamental principle that parties are bound by stipulations signed in open court by their attorneys. The issue arose in the context of a negligence case, where plaintiff was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle while standing on a sidewalk median in Brooklyn. The vehicle was owned by defendant Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc. and driven by defendant Massamba Seck (the Infiniti defendants). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and required extensive hospitalization and multiple surgeries. At issue in this case is whether the Infiniti defendants are bound by a settlement agreement entered into by their attorneys. We find that the Infiniti defendants are bound, because their attorneys had apparent authority to bind them to the $8,875,000 judgment. Significantly, there is no affidavit or testimony by Infiniti stating that Infiniti, or any of its employees, was unaware of the settlement or that Infiniti did not authorize the settlement. The only ones making this claim are the lawyers from the firm that was hired by the insurance companies to defend the Infiniti defendants. The fact that one of the insurers is now unable to pay its intended $5 million portion does not inure to the Infiniti defendants’ benefit. Rather, the Infiniti defendants are responsible for the portion of the agreed-upon amounts that the insurers do not pay. To accept their position would alter the way litigation is conducted in New York State. Courts would have to conduct colloquies in every case to make sure that the parties, notwithstanding their attorneys’ actions in appearing for them on numerous occasions and signing stipulations, acquiesced in the terms of the stipulations. That is unacceptable, especially here, where the Infiniti defendants never objected to the stipulation until the filing of the instant order to show cause more than a year and six months after the stipulation was signed in open court. Pruss v Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00229, First Dept 1-9-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, A SECURITY GUARD, ATTACKED HER; DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGED PLAINTIFF ATTACKED HIM AND HE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNDER EITHER SCENARIO; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the security guard’s employer’s (SEB’s) motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the security guard attacked her without provocation. The security guard alleged he acted in self defense after plaintiff and others attacked him. The employer would not be liable in either scenario:

Plaintiff Gregory testified that SEB’s employee, a security guard who was then working at a movie theater, attacked her with a box cutter and slashed her face and body with it after she tapped him on the shoulder and told him she had enjoyed the movie she had just seen. The security guard gave a different version of events and claimed that he was acting in self defense after plaintiffs and others attacked him with box cutters. However, neither version of events would give rise to liability on the part of SEB. Under plaintiff’s version of events, SEB could not be held liable because SEB’s employee’s unprovoked assault on Gregory with a box cutter was not within the scope of any duties he may have had as a security guard and was not done in furtherance of SEB’s business interests … . Under the security guard’s version of events, even assuming for purposes of this appeal that his actions were within the scope of his duties as a security guard and were done in furtherance of SEB’s business interests, SEB would not be held liable because the security guard’s actions were taken in self-defense after being attacked by patrons of the movie theater. Gregory v National Amusements, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00223, First Dept 1-9-20

 

WOOD WHICH HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND FROM A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined wood from a split rail fence which had fallen to the ground was open and obvious and therefore not actionable in this slip and fall case:

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition . There is, however, no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open…  and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that the wood on the ground was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Swinney v Nassau County, 2020 NY Slip Op 00169, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

DEFENDANT CLEANING SERVICE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER, PURSUANT TO THE ESPINAL CRITERIA, IT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant cleaning service contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Espinal for launching or creating an instrument of harm by mopping the floor without placing warning signs in the are where she fell:

Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140). However, there are three exceptions to the general rule … . …

Here, the plaintiff alleged only one of the Espinal exceptions: that the defendant created or launched an instrument of harm. Thus, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant was required to establish, prima facie, that it did not create or launch an instrument of harm … . … [T]he defendant’s submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact regarding the location of “wet floor” signs and whether the wet floor or the signs were readily observable by a reasonable use of the plaintiff’s senses as she entered the area through a closed door … . Thus, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that caused the plaintiff to fall or that it provided adequate notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . Ramsey v Temco Serv. Indus., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00166, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PROTRUDING SCREW WHICH LACERATED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S LEG; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the protruding screw which allegedly lacerated plaintiff-student’s leg as she walked by bleachers. Therefore the school’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

A property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to have discovered and remedied it … . To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the moving party is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last inspected or maintained prior to the plaintiff’s accident  … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of the School District’s Director of Facilities, Roald Broas, who averred, in relevant part, that the School District did not maintain the subject bleachers, but instead “hire[d] subcontractors to perform inspections and maintenance of the bleachers.” Broas’s conclusory affidavit—which failed to identify the subcontractor who performed the last inspection or maintenance on the bleachers, as well as when and how such inspection or maintenance was performed—was insufficient to establish, prima facie, the School District’s lack of constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . Kelly v Roy C. Ketcham High Sch., 2020 NY Slip Op 00111, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, , , ,

THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school (NYC Department of Education [DOE]) was entitled to summary judgment in this premises liability and negligent supervision action. Plaintiff third-grader alleged a door closed on his finger, severing the tip. The school demonstrated it had no notice of any problems with the door and that supervision could not have prevented the accident. The Second Department noted that the unsigned depositions were properly considered because they were submitted by the DOE and therefore were adopted as accurate, and further noted that, because the accident occurred on school property, the city (NYC) was not liable:

The unsigned deposition transcripts of the school’s custodial engineer and the injured plaintiff’s teacher, who testified on behalf of their employer, the DOE, were admissible under CPLR 3116(a) because the transcripts were submitted by the DOE and, therefore, were adopted as accurate … . …

The deposition testimony of the building’s custodial engineer established that he inspected the door at least twice per week before the accident. Moreover, the school principal provided evidence that a search of the school’s records revealed no “indication of any maintenance, repairs, work orders, or other issues reported” with respect to the door during the two-year time period prior to the accident. This evidence, together with evidence that the subject door was in regular use, including regular use by the infant plaintiff, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the door was not defective … . …

When an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury … . E.W. v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00175, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

TENANT IN THE BUILDING ABUTTING A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL; RELEVANT LAW CONCISELY AND COMPLETELY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, a tenant in the building abutting the sidewalk, could not be held liable for a sidewalk defect which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The Second Department concisely but completely laid out the law on the issues:

Pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a), “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk” has a duty “to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk . . . shall be liable for any injury to property or personal injury, including death, proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition” … . “As a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party” … . “However, where a lease agreement is so comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance as to entirely displace the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk, the tenant may be liable to a third party” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged defect, make special use of the sidewalk, violate any applicable statute, or have a contractual duty to maintain the sidewalk where the accident occurred … . Leitch-Henry v Doe Fund, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00112, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PROBLEMS WITH A DOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY MALFUNCTIONED CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO FALL OUT OF A WHEELCHAIR LIFT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ [property owner/manager’s ?] motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the door to a wheelchair lift on the exterior of the building where plaintiffs lived malfunctioned causing plaintiff’s decedent to fall out of the lift. The defendants presented evidence they did not have notice of any problems with the door:

Defendants established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff’s decedent was injured when the door to the wheelchair lift on the exterior of the building in which they lived malfunctioned causing him to fall out of the lift. Defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that they did not have notice of any malfunction in the subject door through service records showing no issues related to the door opening prematurely … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence that complaints about the lift were similar in nature or caused by similar contributing factors … . Nor is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable under the circumstances presented … . Pui Kum Ng Lee v Chatham Green, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00069, First Dept 1-7-20

 

THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN AUDITORIUM RISER COLLAPSED WHEN SHE WAS WALKING ON IT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the jury in this personal injury action was properly instructed on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. A riser used for a choral rehearsal collapsed as plaintiff was walking on it:

To be entitled to a res ipsa loquitur jury charge, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the injurious event is “of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence,” (2) that the event was “caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant” and (3) that the event was not “due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . …

… [A] jury could reasonably conclude that the collapse of a stage riser being put to its intended use qualifies as an event that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence ,,, , …  [Plaintiff} … proffered expert testimony demonstrating that the collapse was most likely caused by a flaring of the riser’s locking mechanism, a condition caused by “wear and tear” and which allegedly could have been discovered with proper inspection and maintenance. [P]laintiff’s … expert evidence of negligence did not preclude her from also relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur … .

The evidence established that the auditorium was locked whenever it was not in use and that defendant’s agents exclusively assembled, disassembled, maintained and repaired the risers. * * * [ P]laintiff was not required to “conclusively eliminate the possibility” that someone intentionally disengaged the locking mechanism … . Rather, all that was required was that the likelihood of an intentional act “be so reduced that the greater probability lies at defendant’s door” … . Elsawi v Saratoga Springs City Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 00019, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

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