You are here: / Negligence
, ,

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

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEUROLOGIST AND DEFENDANT CARDIOLOGIST WERE JOINTLY DIAGNOSING AND TREATING PLAINTIFF FOR HER STROKE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NEUROLOGIST SHOULD HAVE ENSURED THAT A TEST ORDERED BY THE NEUROLOGIST, BUT TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CARDIOLOGIST, WAS DONE WITHIN 48 HOURS (FIRST DEPT),

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant doctors’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether defendants were jointly diagnosing and treating the plaintiff. Defendant neurologist ordered a trans-esophageal electrocardiogram (TEE), to be done by a cardiologist, to determine the origin of plaintiff’s stroke. Plaintiff alleged defendant neurologist should have made sure the TEE was performed immediately. The TEE was performed more than two week’s after plaintiff’s initial stroke:

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent for scheduling a TEE, the definitive diagnostic tool to detect the presence of atrial clots, more than two weeks after the patient’s initial stroke was confirmed and she was referred to the cardiology defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants should have scheduled the TEE to take place within 48 hours, or, alternatively, placed the patient on anticoagulants as a prophylactic measure.

The expert affidavit submitted by plaintiff raises an issue of fact whether the neurology defendants retained a duty to ensure that the patient received a timely TEE insofar as Dr. Xie referred her to the cardiology defendants as part of his overall neurological assessment, and he continued to manage her condition throughout. Under these circumstances, questions exist whether defendants were engaged in “joint action in diagnosis or treatment” so as to make it appropriate to impose liability on one for the negligence of the other … . Lin v Yi Xie, 2019 NY Slip Op 08943, First Dept 12-12-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DOCTOR WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS USUAL PRACTICE OR HABIT IN PERFORMING KNEE REPLACEMENT SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the defense verdict in this medical malpractice action, determined that defendant doctor (Baez) was properly allowed to testify about his usual practice or “habit” in performing a knee replacement:

Baez’s habit testimony as to how he performs knee replacement surgeries, including that the methodology for measuring and dissecting 10 millimeters of the patient’s patella did not vary from patient to patient, that the manner in which he performed knee replacement surgeries was done in a deliberate, identical, and repetitive manner on every patient, and that he was in complete control of the circumstances concerning the measuring and dissection of the patient’s patella, was properly admitted by the Supreme Court … . The evidence supported a finding that Baez’s surgical techniques  a deliberate and repetitive practice by a person in complete control of the circumstances … . Heubish v Baez, 2019 NY Slip Op 08826, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY HAVE STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN, HE NEVERTHELESS FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. The fact that defendant (Maicol) allegedly stopped at a stop sign before pulling out into plaintiff’s path did not raise a question of fact:

… [T]he plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that Maicol’s negligence in failing to yield the right-of-way was a proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142[a]; 1172[a] … ). Moreover, the plaintiff’s case was buttressed by Maicol’s admission in the police report to the effect that he failed to see the plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the collision … . …

That Maicol stopped at the stop sign was not dispositive, as he nevertheless failed to yield … . The assertions in the defendants’ counsel’s affirmation that the plaintiff may have been speeding or negligent in failing to take evasive action were speculative … . In any event, to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault in establishing his or her prima facie case … . Ashby v Estate of Encarnacion, 2019 NY Slip Op 08815, Second Dept 12-12-19

 

THE NURSING HOME SUED BY DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER AS EXECUTOR OF HER MOTHER’S ESTATE BROUGHT A THIRD-PARTY ACTION AGAINST THE DAUGHTER ALLEGING HER MOTHER’S INJURIES DID NOT RESULT FROM A FALL AT THE NURSING HOME BUT RATHER FROM THE DAUGHTER’S NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE NURSING HOME’S INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE HOME CARE AND SUPERVISION OF HER MOTHER; UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THERE EXISTED NO DUTY OF CARE UNDER WHICH THE DAUGHTER COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTION BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff (Santoro), the daughter of the decedent and the executor of her mother’s estate, did not owe a duty of care to her infirm mother such that Santoro could be sued for contribution by the nursing home her mother’s estate was suing. The decedent was released from the nursing home to reside with Santoro. Subsequently Santoro, as executor, sued the nursing home based upon her mother’s fall at the facility. The nursing home then brought a third-party action against Santoro alleging that the decedent’s injuries stemmed from a fall at Santoro’s home resulting from Santoro’s negligent care and supervision of her mother. The opinion discusses contribution versus indemnification and all possible theories which might impose a duty upon Santoro, but ultimately held no extant duty was applicable to these facts:

There is no common-law duty of a child to care for a parent … . While a statutory duty may be imposed in derogation of common law, the defendant here does not rely on any such statute. However, a duty may also be imposed by contract … . “The general rule is that, where the relationship between the parties is that of parent and child, the law presumes that where there is no proof of a contract under which the services were performed . . . they were rendered gratuitously” … .​ …

… [A] party also may assume a duty to a third party based upon gratuitous conduct. …  [T]he question is whether [the] defendant’s conduct placed [the] plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than [the] plaintiff would have been in had [the] defendant done nothing'” … . When determining whether a cause of action exists, the question is whether the alleged wrongdoer has “launched a force or instrument of harm,” not whether the alleged wrongdoer “stopped where inaction is at most a refusal to become an instrument of good” … . In this case, the defendant alleged that Santoro failed to act in accordance with its instructions—which, in its view, would make her an instrument of good—not that she placed the decedent in a more vulnerable position than if she had done nothing.

Further, a duty may arise ” where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid'” … . However, the defendant cites no duty imposed in derogation of common law. Further, it is not alleged that Santoro secluded the decedent while she was in a helpless state, preventing others from rendering aid. …

The defendant would impose a new duty on those who live with infirm individuals “to use reasonable care” and “be liable for harm caused by the failure to use reasonable care by affirmative act or omission” … . The imposition of such an obligation carries with it public policy considerations of possible negative consequences, since such a general obligation could discourage persons from residing with the infirm, discourage children and infirm parents from living together, and discourage the infirm from attempting to resume independent living … . The circumstances alleged here “provide no justification for creating” such a duty … . Santoro v Poughkeepsie Crossings, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08883, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT AND HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF CUPID, NOT PLAINTIFF ROBINSON, WAS DRIVING THE CAR DID NOT CREATE A RELEVANT QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The evidence demonstrated defendant driver (Paul) went through a red light and failed to see what he should have seen. The defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs claimed that Cupid was driving when in fact the other plaintiff, Robinson, was driving was irrelevant:

The evidence submitted in support of Robinson’s motion demonstrated, prima facie, that Paul entered the subject intersection against a red light, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d) … . That evidence further showed that Paul failed to see the plaintiffs’ vehicle before colliding with it in the middle of the intersection, thus demonstrating that Paul failed to see that which he should have seen through the proper use of his senses. Contrary to the defendants’ contention in the Supreme Court, Robinson was not required to demonstrate her freedom from comparative fault in order to establish her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability … .

Thus, Robinson made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendants’ liability by demonstrating that Paul was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the subject accident and her resulting injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. On the facts presented here, whether Robinson or Cupid was driving their vehicle is not germane to the issue of the defendants’ liability. Robinson v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08881, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

, , ,

MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A DOCTOR PROPERLY SEVERED FROM A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION AGAINST THE DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action against a doctor (Wishner) for medical malpractice was properly severed from an action against the doctor’s employer (HMG) for negligent training, supervision, hiring and retention. Evidence the doctor had negligently treated another patient would not be admissible in the malpractice action but would be admissible in the action against the employer:

“In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the court may order a severance of claims, or may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue” (CPLR 603). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of Wishner’s motion which was to sever the causes of action asserted against HMG alleging negligent training, supervision, hiring, and retention from the causes of action premised on medical malpractice. In general, “it is improper to prove that a person did an act on a particular occasion by showing that he or she did a similar act on a different, unrelated occasion” … . Thus, generally, evidence of prior unrelated bad acts of negligent treatment of other patients, even if relevant, constitutes impermissible propensity evidence that lacks probative value and “has the potential to induce the jury to decide the case based on evidence of [a] defendant’s character” … . Mullen v Wishner, 2019 NY Slip Op 08850, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS; THE ONE-STEP RISER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the out-of-possession landlord (Steph-Leigh) was not responsible for the repair of a one-step riser inside a warehouse, which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, where the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the pleadings do not allege the violation of a statute, Steph-Leigh demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it was an out-of-possession landlord that was not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly damaged step … . Although the lease obligated Steph-Leigh to make necessary structural repairs to the interior of the premises, contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the allegedly cracked and eroded single-step riser was not a structural element of the warehouse for which Steph-Leigh was contractually responsible … . Michaele v Steph-Leigh Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08844, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

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