You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE CARRIER WHICH HAD ISSUED A BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY COVERING THE INSURED’S FLATBED TRUCK WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM AN INJURY INCURRED WHILE UNLOADING A TRACTOR FROM THE FLATBED TRUCK; UNLOADING A TRUCK IS CONSIDERED OPERATION OF THE TRUCK UNDER VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff-insurer was obligated to defend and the insured in this personal injury case stemming from the unloading of a tractor from a flatbed truck owned by the insured. The tractor rolled over the insured’s son as it was being unloaded. The son and his wife sued the insured and the insured’s farm. Plaintiff carrier brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify, apparently claiming the (insured’s) truck was not being operated when the accident occurred:

If anything within the “four corners of the complaint suggest[s] . . . a reasonable possibility of coverage,” the insurer must defend, even though it may not ultimately be bound to pay because the insured may not be liable … . …

Pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law, “[e]very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for . . . injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [1]) … . * * * “The policy of insurance issued must be as broad as the insured owner’s liability for use of the vehicle by the owner or anyone using the vehicle with his [or her] permission” … .

Loading and unloading of a covered vehicle constitute “use or operation” pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) … , and a vehicle does not have to be in motion to be in “use or operation” … . * * *

George Henderson [the insured] loaded and secured the tractor on the flatbed truck, drove the flatbed truck to the farm, rolled the bed back and tilted it, and operated the winch that was supposed to be holding the tractor in place. He also regularly requested or allowed Charles Henderson [his son} and the other individual to unload machinery from the flatbed truck. Charles Henderson asserted that, due to George Henderson not paying attention, the winch cable went slack, causing it to release from the tractor and allow the tractor to roll. George Henderson is potentially both directly and vicariously liable for negligence in the personal injury action … , and there is prima facie “reasonable possibility of coverage” … . Thus, plaintiff is obliged to defend George Henderson and the farm in the underlying action. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. v Henderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00021, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

,

VERDICT FINDING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NEGLIGENT BUT FURTHER FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE STUDENT’S SUICIDE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED BULLYING AT SCHOOL CAUSED THEIR SON’S SUICIDE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the verdict finding the school district was negligent but further finding the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff-student’s suicide was not against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiffs alleged bullying at school was the reason for their son’s suicide and claimed the school was liable under a negligent-supervision theory:

“… [A] jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that [such] fault was not a proximate cause of [decedent’s] injuries is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . …

The conduct of defendant’s employees was not blameless … — indeed, it appears that several minor incidents involving decedent provided missed opportunities for them to uncover what was going on — but the fact remains that the trial proof neither established the degree of the bullying that decedent received at school nor showed that defendant could have anticipated its impact upon him. Therefore, the jury could logically find that defendant was negligent by failing “to adequately supervise” decedent in some respects … , but that the pain, suffering and suicide of decedent were not foreseeable consequences of that negligence … . The issues of negligence and proximate cause were not inextricably interwoven as a result and, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “we find that the evidence did not so preponderate in plaintiff[s’] favor that the jury’s verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . C.T. v Board of Educ. of S. Glens Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 00023, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

AFTER JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THREE OF FOUR NEW JERSEY DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; WITH RESPECT TO ONE NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT, THE JURISDICTION ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED BY THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that New Jersey defendant Princeton Radiology Associates (PRO) and the associated defendant doctors (Tsai and Chon) had demonstrated New York did not have jurisdiction over them in this medical malpractice action. With regard to another related New Jersey defendant, Princeton Procure Management, LLC (PPM), the First Department held its lack-of-jurisdiction affirmative defense should not have been dismissed and a jury must decide the issue:

After defendants PPM, PRO, Tsai and Chon moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the motion court found that plaintiff had made a “substantial start” in demonstrating a basis for personal jurisdiction over those defendants. PPM appealed and this Court affirmed, noting the evidence that PPM had identified a principal place of business in New York, and that it “marketed its Somerset, New Jersey, location to target New York residents, touting its proximity to New York in advertising,” and “entered into an agreement with a consortium of New York City hospitals for the referral of cancer patients for treatment at its facility” … . …

Plaintiff did not meet her ultimate burden of establishing that Drs. Tsai and Chon, New Jersey doctors who treated her in New Jersey, projected themselves, on their own initiative, into New York to engage in a sustained and substantial transaction of business related to her claims, such that specific long-arm jurisdiction existed over them under CPLR 302(a)(1) … . …

… [Re: PPM] we conclude that the evidence submitted by plaintiff … does not warrant dismissal of PPM’s affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction. As to general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, plaintiff presented documents in which PPM listed a New York place of business, but PPM submitted an affidavit of its president, who identified PPM’s principal place of business as in New Jersey and denied having a New York principal office. …

Plaintiff also failed to establish that specific long-arm jurisdiction exists over PPM under CPLR 302(a)(1). The evidence presented by plaintiff, including various contracts and the radio interviews and billing documents discussed above, provides a “sufficient start” in demonstrating a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction … , but does not warrant dismissal of PPM’s affirmative defense … . Robins v Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00047, First Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN MINUTES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A PULMONARY EMBOLISM UPON ADMISSION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. The opinion is fact-specific and too detailed to fairly summarize here. The majority concluded there was a question of fact whether the administration of a drug, which defendants averred was contraindicated, would have saved decedent’s life. Decedent  was suffering from a pulmonary embolism upon admission. The staff waited hours for blood tests and an angiogram to confirm the diagnosis. A drug which can dissolve blood clots in minutes was not administered. Barry v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 09397, First Dept 12-26-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS OR LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the ice-on-sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted:

[Defendants] failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive knowledge of the icy condition of the sidewalk … . Neither presented evidence concerning snow removal immediately prior to plaintiff’s accident and/or their lack of notice of the condition … . Burton v Khedouri Ezair Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 09379, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BASED UPON AN ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT-ORDERED DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to grant defendants’ motion to strike the complaint for plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with discovery orders. Discovery had been ongoing for years with several conferences with the judge and several orders to comply with new discovery demands:

… [I]t is undisputed that defendants’ motion to strike the complaint failed to include an affirmation of good faith as required by 22 NYCRR 202.7 … . Moreover, this error is compounded by the lack of other record evidence demonstrating that defendants engaged in good faith efforts to resolve the ongoing discovery issues without the need for judicial intervention. Despite plaintiff having at least partially complied with defendants’ discovery demands, the record is devoid of any correspondence or other documentation indicating that defendants ever specifically informed plaintiff’s counsel, other than in a generalized conclusory manner, in what manner the subject discovery responses were deficient or inadequate. Further, following the filing of defendants’ April 2018 motion to strike, defendants’ counsel failed to respond to four separate letters sent by plaintiff’s counsel in May 2018 wherein he provided certain additional discovery and otherwise attempted to ascertain from defendants what, if any, paper discovery remained outstanding. Notably, defendants have provided no explanation as to why they failed to provide any such response prior to the filing of defendants’ second motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint … .

Although we appreciate Supreme Court’s concern regarding the length of time that this action has been pending and the fact that the various discovery responses that plaintiff’s counsel did provide were unquestionably untimely, we do not find that defendants have established a “deliberately evasive, misleading and uncooperative course of conduct or a determined strategy of delay [by plaintiff] that would be deserving of the most vehement condemnation” … . Mesiti v Weiss. 2019 NY Slip Op 09343. Third Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS UNDER A POLICY ISSUED TO THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO RENOVATE CONCRETE WALKWAYS; THE OWNER AND MANAGER ARE ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY PAINTING THE WALKWAYS ALL THE SAME COLOR AND THEREBY DISGUISING A CHANGE IN ELEVATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined plaintiffs are additional insureds under an insurance policy issued by defendant to nonparty Upgrade, the contractor hired to restore concrete catwalks. Plaintiffs, Windsor Apartments and Argo Real Estate, are entitled to coverage for a slip and fall in plaintiffs’ building allegedly caused by painting the floor all the same color, thereby disguising a change in elevation:

Defendant State National issued a commercial general liability (CGL) policy to Upgrade during the relevant time period. The policy contained a “Blanket Additional Insured” Endorsement that limited coverage to operations performed by or on behalf of Upgrade:

“It is agreed that this Policy shall include as additional Insureds any person or organization to whom the Named Insured [Upgrade] has agreed by written contract to provide coverage, but only with respect to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured and only with respect to occurrences subsequent to the making of such written contract.”

The State National policy also stated that its coverage was primary, with exceptions not applicable here, for damages arising out of the premises or operations for which an entity is added as an additional insured.

The policy issued by plaintiff Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s) to Windsor and Argo provided that coverage was excess when its insureds, Windsor and Argo, have other primary insurance available to them covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations for which they have been added as an additional insured. * * *

… [S]ince the injury to the plaintiff in the underlying action here “arose out of” Upgrade’s operation of painting the walkways, plaintiffs are additional insureds under the State National policy and the policy is primary in connection with the underlying action. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v State Natl. Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 09399, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A REFERRING PHYSICIAN CAN NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PHYSICIAN TO WHOM THE PATIENT WAS REFERRED, THE REFERRING PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR HER OWN NEGLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO CONFERRING WITH THE OTHER PHYSICIAN ABOUT THEIR DIFFERENT FINDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for summary judgment by one of the two doctors who examined plaintiff (Dr. Andreyko) should not have been granted:

Although a medical provider cannot be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a physician to whom a patient is referred, the referring medical provider may be held liable for his or her own independent negligent conduct that proximately causes the patient injury … …

Here, Andreyko examined the plaintiff on May 30, 2012, and noted the existence of palpable masses, “tender to palpation,” in the plaintiff’s right breast. Later that day, the plaintiff was examined by Wertkin who, though detecting thickening of the right breast, did not detect any palpable masses. Wertkin reported his findings to Andreyko who, upon reviewing them, reviewed her notes from her examination of the plaintiff but did not contact Wertkin to discuss the differences in their respective examinations. We conclude that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Andreyko, upon learning that Wertkin was unable to palpate any masses in the plaintiff’s right breast, departed from the accepted standard of care by failing to advise Wertkin that Andreyko had been able to palpate distinct masses in the plaintiff’s breast, and whether Andreyko’s failure to do so was a substantial factor in contributing to the delay in diagnosis that the plaintiff had breast cancer. Notably, Wertkin testified at his deposition that, given the plaintiff’s medical history, had he been able to locate any distinct palpable masses in the plaintiff’s breast, the standard of care would have called for a biopsy of the breast. Yanchynska v Wertkin, 2019 NY Slip Op 09320, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH STRUCK HIM WHEN HE WAS STANDING IN THE ROADWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN; OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE DECISION INCLUDE THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY, THE TRUCK RENTAL COMPANIES’ LIABILITY, THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff police officer was entitled to summary judgment against the driver of the tractor trailer which struck the officer who was standing in the roadway both under a common law negligence theory and under General Municipal Law 205-e. The court dealt with several other issues including: (1) whether a second police officer was engaged in an emergency operation, giving rise to the reckless disregard standard, when he stopped to assist the plaintiff who had made a traffic stop (the answer is no); (2) whether the second officer was liable based upon the position of his car (the answer is no, the car furnished a condition for the accident but was not the cause); (3) whether the injured officer’s recovery was confined to Workers’ Compensation (there is a question of fact whether the injury was “grave”); (4) whether the Graves Amendment protected the truck rental companies (the answer is yes); (5) whether vicarious liability applies to the truck driver’s employer (there is a question of fact on that issue). With respect to the common law negligence and the General Municipal Law 205-e causes of action, the court wrote:

… [T]he plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative negligence in order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of Burke’s [the truck driver’s] liability on the first cause of action [negligence]. * * *

When the light changed, Burke began his left turn onto northbound Midland Avenue. Prior to beginning his turn, Burke was aware that there was a police officer conducting a traffic stop on foot and a police car parked on the northbound side of Midland Avenue. Although Burke believed he could make the turn safely, the rear of the trailer hit the injured plaintiff. * * *

The plaintiffs also established … Burke’s liability as to … a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-e. … [T]hat statute permits a police officer to bring a tort claim for injuries sustained “while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by . . . superior officer[s]” where such injuries occur “directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments” … . In order to recover under the statute, “a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a) requires a driver to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any . . . pedestrian.” Here, the unrebutted evidence established a prima facie violation of § 1146(a), as it demonstrated that Burke failed to exercise due care to avoid hitting the injured plaintiff. Cioffi v S.M. Foods, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 09251, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

,

THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS WERE PASSENGERS HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY ON A THROUGH ROAD; WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CAR STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN BEFORE PULLING OUT INTO THE PATH OF PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-passengers’ motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted. The Hernandez/Transit car, in which plaintiffs were passengers, had the right of way on a through road. The defendant Desriviere’s car was on an intersecting street with a stop sign. The Second Department held that the fact the Desriviere car may have stopped at the stop sign before entering the intersection did not raise a relevant question of fact:

As a general matter, a driver who fails to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) is negligent as a matter of law … . The driver with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the other motorist will obey traffic laws that require him or her to yield … . Yet, “a driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found to have contributed to the happening of the accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident” … . Here, Hernandez and Julie P. Transit established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that (1) Hernandez had the right-of-way, (2) that because Desriviere failed to yield the right-of-way upon entering the intersection in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), he was negligent as a matter of law, and (3) that Desriviere’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . The question of whether Desriviere stopped at the stop sign is not dispositive, since the evidence established that he failed to yield even if he did stop … . Belle-Fleur v Desriviere, 2019 NY Slip Op 09244, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

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