You are here: / Negligence
,

PORTIONS OF CITY SIDEWALK ELEVATED BY TREE ROOTS AND “REPAIRED” WITH COLD PATCH; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY ARE LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined: (1) there are questions of fact concerning whether the abutting property owners are liable for this sidewalk slip and fall; (2) there are questions of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition by patching the sidewalk. Plaintiff tripped and fell in an area where the sidewalk had been elevated by tree roots:

… [T]he Charter of the City of Buffalo (Charter) § 413-50 (A) specifically imposes on “owner[s] or occupant[s] of any lands fronting or abutting on any street,” i.e., the property defendants, a duty to maintain and repair the sidewalk and provides that their failure to do so will result in liability for injuries to users of the sidewalk. Contrary to the property defendants’ contention, that duty to maintain and repair extends to damage caused by the roots of a tree owned by the City where, as here, “the local ordinance contains no exceptions to the duty imposed on abutting landowners to maintain the sidewalk, even if the allegedly dangerous condition was created by a root extending from [City] property” … . …

… [T]he evidence submitted by the property defendants in support of their motion, which was then incorporated into the City’s cross motion, raised triable issues of fact whether the City performed the “cold patch” repair to the area sometime before plaintiff’s accident and whether the condition of the sidewalk on the day of plaintiff’s accident was the same as when the “cold patch” was first applied. We thus conclude that the City failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not affirmatively create a dangerous condition or that the dangerous condition was due solely to conditions that developed over time … . Beagle v City of Buffalo, 2019 NY Slip Op 09126, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

, ,

CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO AN ENGINEERING FIRM HIRED TO OVERSEE AN HVAC INSTALLATION PROJECT; THE THREE-YEAR NEGLIGENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the negligence action against Skyline, an engineering firm hired to inspect an on-going HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) installation, was not time-barred because the continuous representation doctrine applied to toll the accrual of the limitations period:

Plaintiff commenced this action in 2016 alleging that it retained Skyline, an engineering firm, to perform “special inspection” services for “Phase I” of an HVAC installation project, and that Skyline negligently performed those services and breached the contract. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Skyline demonstrated prima facie that it completed Phase I work under the contract in 2012 and that it was serving in a professional capacity as an engineering firm when it performed those services, so that the three-year limitations period applied (CPLR 214[6] … ). …

… [P]plaintiff demonstrated that the action is not time-barred because the continuous representation doctrine is applicable and tolled the accrual of the limitations period until 2014 … . Plaintiff submitted evidence showing Skyline provided special and progress inspection and testing services for “Remediation of Phase I” of the project, pursuant to a 2014 agreement. Although this work was completed under a separate agreement, Skyline rendered these services to correct the engineering and construction defects that it failed to identify during its Phase 1 inspection in 2012. Since Skyline continued to provide services in connection with Phase I in 2014, the action commenced in 2016 is timely under CPLR 214(6) … . Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. v Skyline Eng’g, L.L.C, 2019 NY Slip Op 09112, First Dept 12-19-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS TRAVELING THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE-WAY STREET AND DID NOT SLOW DOWN APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION WHERE HE COLLIDED WITH THE SIDE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver was entitled to summary judgment in this bicycle-car collision case. Plaintiff was bicycling in the wrong direction on a one-way street. Defendant pulled out into the intersection after checking the traffic in the appropriate direction and plaintiff ran into the side of defendant’s car:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, a person riding a bicycle on a roadway has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a motor vehicle. Therefore, a bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself into a dangerous position … .

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(b) states that a “driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall . . . slow down to a speed reasonable for existing conditions, or shall stop if necessary,” and “yield the right of way . . . to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection.” In addition, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a) requires motorists to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian, or domestic animal” on the roadway and to “give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.”

The undisputed testimony was that plaintiff was traveling in the opposite direction of traffic, in clear violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, and traveled into the intersection without stopping or yielding to defendant’s vehicle which was clearly already in the intersection. Admittedly, plaintiff made no attempt to stop, or to alert defendant of his presence. Although a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty to see what is there to be seen, defendant was not required to look in the opposite direction of the intersecting one-way street to see if someone was traveling in the wrong direction and at a speed indicating no intent to stop. Felix v Polakoff, 2019 NY Slip Op 09100, First Dept 12-19-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ASSAULTED BY ANOTHER PATIENT IN DEFENDANT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY; THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE ASSAILANT, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY, WERE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; THE INCIDENT REPORTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSAULT WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE DEFENDANT TO BE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND WERE THEREFORE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the assailant’s medical records were privileged, but any incident reports pertaining to the assault were not. Plaintiff alleged she was attacked while a long-term resident of defendant long-term health care facility. The assailant in this third-party assault action was not made a party:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which sought disclosure of the assailant’s admission chart. The assailant is not a party to the action, his medical records were subject to the physician-patient privilege, and he has not waived that privilege … .

However, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which sought disclosure of all incident reports related to the assault. Pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3), certain documents generated in connection with the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function,” or which are “required by the Department of Health pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-l,” are generally not discoverable … . The defendant, as the party seeking to invoke the privilege, has the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes … . Here, the defendant merely asserted that a privilege applied to the requested documents without making any showing as to why the privilege attached. Accordingly, the incident reports related to the assault were subject to disclosure. DeLeon v Nassau Health Care Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08989, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

DAMAGES IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE FOR A TORN MENISCUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S DOMINANT HAND ($25,000 FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING) WERE INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPLR 4404(a) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as inadequate in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff sustained a torn meniscus in his right knee and irreparable damage to his thumb on his dominant hand. The jury awarded $25,000 for pat pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering. The Second Department held that the past pain and suffering amount should be $100,000 and the future pain and suffering amount should be $50,000:

“While the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and the jury’s determination is entitled to great deference, it may be set aside if the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” … . Prior damage awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts, but serve to guide and enlighten them in determining whether a verdict in a given case constitutes reasonable compensation … . However, consideration should also be given to other factors, including the nature and extent of the injuries … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the jury’s award for past pain and suffering was inadequate to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501[c] …). Furthermore, the jury’s failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering was not based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence … , and was inadequate to the extent indicated herein … . Cullen v Thumser, 2019 NY Slip Op 08988, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

PROOF OF GENERAL INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s (Colonial’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this ice-on-sidewalk slip and fall case:

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] 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” … . Here, Colonial failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged patch of ice. The deposition testimony of the president of its board of managers merely referred to general inspection practices, and provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the subject area prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . Carro v Colonial Woods Condominiums, 2019 NY Slip Op 08986, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO WAS IN A VEGETATIVE STATE, EXPERIENCED PAIN; THE DEFENDANT HOSPITALS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the hospital’s motion to dismiss the conscious pain and suffering claim should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was in a vegetative state, but there was evidence she was aware of pain:

… [A]lthough she was in a vegetative state, the decedent was generally responsive to pain, and sometimes followed commands or responded to verbal stimuli … . Although defendants’ experts opined that reflex responses to pain, such as grimacing or withdrawing, are not signs of conscious awareness, at least some of the behaviors recorded in the medical records transcend such reflex responses.

The medical records also reflect that the decedent was administered pain medication in at least one of defendant facilities. Although not dispositive, this fact suggests that the decedent’s doctors believed that she might be able to experience pain.

In addition, plaintiff testified that, while at defendants’ facilities, the decedent made expressions of pain or emotion, such as moaning, crying, or smiling, and communicated with her by blinking … . Plaintiff’s belief that the decedent blinked in response to questions was reflected in the medical records, although the phenomenon was not itself observed by others. …

Plaintiff’s expert also opined that the decedent “had a sufficient level of awareness to enable her to feel pain,” as evidenced by the fact that she “made facial expressions, smiled, … grimaced, moaned, blinked, responded to simple questions, responded to verbal and tactile stimuli, and retracted to pain,” all of which were “indicators of some level of awareness and conscious pain. Estreich v Jewish Home Lifecare, 2019 NY Slip Op 08970, First Dept 12-17-19

 

, ,

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court in this elevator accident case, noted that violation of the NYC Building Code is some evidence of negligence but not negligence per se, and held that Dunwell’s (the elevator maintenance company’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Dunwell had demonstrated two Espinal factors did not apply (it did not displace the building defendants’ obligation to keep the elevators safe and it did not launch an instrument of harm, i.e., it did not exacerbate or create the defects in the elevator):

Dunwell’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it should be granted. Dunwell cannot be held liable to plaintiff, because it did not owe the decedent any duty. There is no evidence in the record that Dunwell created or exacerbated any of the alleged elevator defects, including the missing door rollers and link arms, even if it were found to have wrongfully failed to diagnose or correct them (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140, 142-143 [2002] … ). Moreover, Dunwell in fact did recommend that these parts be replaced, but its proposal was not accepted by the Building Defendants, and the governing maintenance agreement did not allow Dunwell to replace them without authorization … . The maintenance agreement was not comprehensive and exclusive and therefore did not displace the Building Defendants’ obligations to maintain the elevators in a safe condition … . Plaintiff does not argue that the decedent detrimentally relied on Dunwell’s continued performance of its duties … . Baez v 1749 Grand Concourse LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08948, First Dept 12-12-19

 

, ,

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court in this elevator accident case, noted that violation of the NYC Building Code is some evidence of negligence but not negligence per se, and held that Dunwell’s (the elevator maintenance company’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Dunwell had demonstrated two Espinal factors did not apply (it did not displace the building defendants’ obligation to keep the elevators safe and it did not launch an instrument of harm, i.e., it did not exacerbate or create the defects in the elevator):

Dunwell’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it should be granted. Dunwell cannot be held liable to plaintiff, because it did not owe the decedent any duty. There is no evidence in the record that Dunwell created or exacerbated any of the alleged elevator defects, including the missing door rollers and link arms, even if it were found to have wrongfully failed to diagnose or correct them (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140, 142-143 [2002] … ). Moreover, Dunwell in fact did recommend that these parts be replaced, but its proposal was not accepted by the Building Defendants, and the governing maintenance agreement did not allow Dunwell to replace them without authorization … . The maintenance agreement was not comprehensive and exclusive and therefore did not displace the Building Defendants’ obligations to maintain the elevators in a safe condition … . Plaintiff does not argue that the decedent detrimentally relied on Dunwell’s continued performance of its duties … . Baez v 1749 Grand Concourse LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08948, First Dept 12-12-19

 

,

IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE, ONE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT HAD NOT DISPLACED THE BUILDING OWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FAILING TO MAKE DANGEROUS CONDITION SAFER DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that one defendant in this elevator accident case, Cooper Square, did not demonstrate that it did not displace the building owner’s duty to keep the premises safe, and another defendant, PS Marcato [elevator company] , sufficiently demonstrated it did not launch an instrument of harm.  The court noted that PS Marcato’s failure to make the elevator safer did not equate to launching and instrument of harm:

Cooper Square failed to establish prima facie that it did not displace [the building owner’s] duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Its management agreement with [the owner] authorized Cooper Square to make repairs or alterations to the premises and to purchase supplies and materials for the building. Cooper Square also agreed to “directly supervise the work of, hire and discharge all maintenance and security personnel,” and was “clothed with such general authority and powers as may be necessary or advisable to carry out the spirit and intent of th[e] Agreement.” An amendment to the management agreement recognized that Cooper Square “ha[d] been delegated significant authority and discretion in the operation of the Building under th[e] Agreement.” * * *

PS Marcato, which inspected and made repairs to the elevator before plaintiff was injured by it, established prima facie that it did not create or exacerbate the dilapidated condition of the elevator, and therefore did not launch a force or instrument of harm (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 142-143 …). While the record suggests that PS Marcato knew that the elevator was in disrepair and being tampered with, it “did nothing more than neglect to make the [elevator] safer — as opposed to less safe — than it was before” the inspection and repairs were made … . Ileiwat v PS Marcato El. Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08946, First Dept 12-12-19

 

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