You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THOSE ASPECTS OF THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS ISSUE WAS NOT ABANDONED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering and future economic loss in this back-injury case was against the weight of the evidence. The motion to set aside those aspects of the verdict should have been granted. A new trial was ordered on those elements of damages. The dissenters argued the future economic law issue was abandoned on appeal:

… [T]he jury’s failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering is ” contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation’ ” … . Although the evidence at trial established that plaintiff was permitted to return to work with no restrictions, the evidence also established that the injuries she sustained in the accident severely affected her ability to perform the same sorts of tasks that she had performed with ease prior to the accident. Moreover, as noted, the parties’ experts agreed that the injury to plaintiff’s lumbar spine was caused by the accident, and plaintiff presented uncontroverted medical testimony at trial establishing that she continues to experience pain as a result of that injury … .

We also agree with plaintiff that the jury’s failure to award damages for future economic loss is against the weight of the evidence.  Initially, we disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the contention was abandoned on appeal … and conclude that plaintiff adequately raised that specific contention in her brief … . Mast v DeSimone, 2019 NY Slip Op 08288, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION BEFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULED ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the negligence action, determined Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the Workers’ Compensation Board had not yet ruled whether plaintiff was injured when acting in the scope of his employment. The parties did not raise this issue:

Although not raised by the parties, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in entertaining defendant’s motion. “It is well settled that primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board [(Board)] . . . [I]t is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by’ the Board” … . Whether plaintiff was injured within the scope of his employment “must in the first instance be determined by the [B]oard” … , and the court thus should not have entertained defendant’s motion at this juncture. Rather, the case should have been referred to the Board for a determination of plaintiffs’ eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits … . Warren v E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08300, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

SHIFTING BURDENS OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS CLARIFIED; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THEORIES OF LIABILITY REFUTED BY DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONSTITUTED AN ABANDONMENT OF THOSE THEORIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing and modifying Supreme Court in three related appeals, clarified the respective burdens to be met at the summary judgment stage in a medical malpractice action. Applying those burdens, the Fourth Department found that summary judgment should have been awarded to the defendants in two of the three appeals. The court noted that plaintiff’s failure to address certain theories of liability refuted in defendant’s motion for summary judgment constituted abandonment of those theories. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. With respect to the burdens of proof, the court explained:

We note at the outset that the facts of this case provide the opportunity for this Court to review the appropriate standard for burden-shifting in medical malpractice cases. It is well settled that a defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action ” has the burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby’ ” (O’Shea v Buffalo Med. Group, P.C., 64 AD3d 1140, 1140 [4th Dept 2009] … ). As stated in O’Shea, once a defendant meets that prima facie burden, “[t]he burden then shift[s] to [the] plaintiff[] to raise triable issues of fact by submitting a physician’s affidavit both attesting to a departure from accepted practice and containing the attesting [physician’s] opinion that the defendant’s omissions or departures were a competent producing cause of the injury” … .

Upon review, we conclude that the burden that O’Shea places on a plaintiff opposing a summary judgment motion with respect to a medical malpractice claim is inconsistent with the law applicable to summary judgment motions in general … . We therefore conclude that, when a defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice claim, “[t]he burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact only after the defendant physician meets the initial burden . . . , and only as to the elements on which the defendant met the prima facie burden” … . To the extent that O’Shea and its progeny state otherwise, those cases should no longer be followed. Bubar v Brodman, 2019 NY Slip Op 08294, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , , , , ,

WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS IN A COMPLAINT IS NOT CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; HERE THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEARN AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THEIR CASE IN DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY WAS NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant school’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. Plaintiffs alleged the school retaliated against them after they complained about race-related issues by making a false child neglect report to Child Protective Services (CPS). The school argued the plaintiffs will not be able to learn the identity of the person who reported the alleged neglect because of the immunity provided by the Social Services Law. The 2nd Department explained that the immunity question is not relevant to whether the complaint states causes of action:

… [P]laintiffs assert causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, violations of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and negligent hiring, training and supervision … .

Defendants moved to dismiss all of these causes of action on the basis that plaintiffs would be unable to prove any of these claims because they did not know the identity of the CPS reporter and would be unable to learn it in discovery. …

… [I]n the context of this motion to dismiss, the Court does not assess the relative merits of the complaint’s allegations against defendant’s contrary assertions or to determine whether or not plaintiffs can produce evidence to support their claims … . Whether plaintiffs “can ultimately establish [their] allegations is not a part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss” … . Thus, regardless of whether plaintiffs will be able to obtain disclosure concerning the identity of the CPS reporter (Social Services Law § 422[4][A] …), defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to dismissal of the well-pleaded complaint for failure to state a cause of action … . M.H.B. v E.C.F.S., 2019 NY Slip Op 08276, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted, noting that a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault:

A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . ” A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle'” ( … see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). 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, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Although a sudden stop of the lead vehicle may constitute a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision, ” vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows'” … .

Here, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was reducing the speed of his vehicle, with his foot on the brake pedal, when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. Likewise, the defendant’s testimony at her deposition, a transcript of which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of his cross motion, was to the effect that her vehicle hit the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear while in “stop and go” traffic. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident … . Xin Fang Xia v Saft, 2019 NY Slip Op 08248, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

STACKED BOXES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; TENANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED; LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; HOWEVER, LANDLORD ESTABLISHED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the landlord did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord in this slip and fall case. But the landlord did demonstrate it did not create of have notice of the stacked boxes which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. The stacked boxes did not constitute an open and obvious condition as a matter of law:

The evidence submitted by the tenant in support of its motion, including, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony regarding the accident, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the stacked boxes constituted an open and obvious condition, and whether the stacked boxes constituted an inherently dangerous condition. The evidence likewise failed to establish, prima facie, that the tenant did not create or have notice of the condition. …

… [T]he landlord defendants’ submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords. The copy of the lease the landlord defendants submitted was illegible, and the deposition testimony …  failed to establish, prima facie, that the landlord defendants had relinquished control over the premises to such a degree as to extinguish their duty to maintain the premise … .

… [T]he landlord defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of the condition … . Robbins v 237 Ave. X, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08237, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTORS WHICH DID SIDEWALK/GRATE WORK LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE CONTRACTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the actions against two contractors (MPM and VRD) which did sidewalk/grate work should not have been dismissed in this slip and fall case. The two contractor defendants did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that they did not launch an instrument of harm:

In general, 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, 138). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm . . . (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties . . . and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other’s party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Here, the owner, MPM, and VRD failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the work performed on the grate and vault did not create the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall and, thus, launched a force or instrument of harm … . Randazzo v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08236, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

EXPERT’S OPINION THAT DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK/MANHOLE CAUSED THE SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although plaintiff’s expert was properly qualified, his opinion that defendant’s improper installation of the sidewalk/manhole caused the sidewalk height-differential over which plaintiff tripped and fell was not supported by evidence in the record:

… [T]he expert reached his conclusion as to the defendant’s negligence by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence and by guessing and speculating in drawing that conclusion … . For example, the expert testified to having no knowledge of when the sidewalk was constructed, when the manhole had been installed, or the weight and inside dimensions of the manhole structure. Yet, he opined that the defendant was responsible for the settling of the sidewalk flag and manhole due to improper backfilling, simply because the manhole belonged to the defendant at the time of the plaintiff’s fall.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, absent the expert’s assumptive and speculative testimony, there was no evidence of the defendant’s negligence. ” Ippolito v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08179, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING THE REAR OF PLAINTFF’S STOPPED CAR; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case:

… [T]he plaintiff’s vehicle struck the rear of the vehicle traveling directly in front of it when that vehicle made a sudden stop in response to the traffic conditions ahead. A few seconds later, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant John F. Meehan (hereinafter the defendant driver) … .

A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendants breached a duty owed to the plaintiff, and that the defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries … . “A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” (,,,see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). Thus, 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 … .

Here, in support of her motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties, which demonstrated that the defendants’ vehicle struck the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident … . Gelo v Meehan, 2019 NY Slip Op 08175, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET IN HIS VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bankruptcy trustee was properly substituted, by the Bankruptcy Court, for plaintiff in a personal injury action, despite the fact that the action had not been listed as an asset when plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for chapter 7 bankruptcy:

The rule that a substitution cannot be made is grounded in Reynolds v Blue Cross of Northeastern N.Y., Inc. (210 AD2d 619). In that case, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary petition for chapter 7 bankruptcy, and failed to list the action on the schedule of assets. After the plaintiffs were discharged from bankruptcy, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue. During the pendency of the motion, the plaintiffs moved in the Bankruptcy Court to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding and to have a successor trustee appointed. A successor trustee was appointed, and both the plaintiffs and the interim trustee opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, 3rd Department, determined that substitution was not available to cure the deficiency, on the ground that a party with no capacity to sue could not be replaced with one who had the capacity to sue, citing Matter of C & M Plastics (Collins) (168 AD2d 160, 161-162). However, in Matter of C & M Plastics (Collins), the proceeding in the Supreme Court was commenced after a bankruptcy petition was filed; therefore, in that case, the plaintiff did not have capacity to sue at the time of the commencement of the action.

Although subsequent cases have held that a substitution of the bankruptcy trustee for the plaintiff cannot be made, even if the plaintiff had the capacity to sue at the time the action or proceedings was commenced (see Rivera v Markowitz, 71 AD3d 449, 450; Pinto v Ancona, 262 AD2d 472), other cases have held that where a motion for substitution was made at the direction of a bankruptcy court, the motion should be granted, as a matter of comity (see Berry v Rampersad, 21 Misc 3d 851 [Sup Ct, Kings County]). … As a matter of comity, and in deference to the determination of the Bankruptcy Court, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as the plaintiff, and to deny the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of capacity to sue, and thereupon, to dismiss the complaint. Fausset v Turner Constr. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 08173, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

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