You are here: / Negligence
, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISON ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY, THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY HAD NOTICE OF A SOCIAL SERVICES CASEWORKER’S SEXUAL ABUSE OR PROPENSITY FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal of this Child Victims Act suit against the county, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether the county had actual or constructive notice that a Department of Social Services caseworker (Hoch) had sexually abused children or had a propensity for the sexual abuse of children. Therefore, the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie “negligent supervision” cause of action:

In the summer of 1993, the parents of 11-year-old Michael Nellenback had him designated as a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed in the care of Madison County’s Department of Social Services. The Madison County Department of Social Services assigned caseworker Karl Hoch to the Nellenback case. According to Mr. Nellenback, over the next three years, Mr. Hoch repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted him. It turned out that Mr. Hoch had sexually abused several other children to whose cases he was assigned.

In 2019, Mr. Nellenback filed suit against Madison County under the claim-revival provision of the Child Victims Act, alleging that that the County was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining Mr. Hoch. The sole issue on appeal is whether Mr. Nellenback raised a triable issue of fact on his negligent supervision claim. We hold that he did not: Even viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Nellenback, the evidence was insufficient to prove the County was on notice of the abuse and that it negligently placed Mr. Hoch in a position to cause harm. * * *

… [T]here was neither evidence that the County had any knowledge of Mr. Hoch’s abuse before the report of his abuse of another child in 1996, nor any evidence the County was aware of any conduct that could have alerted them to the potential for harm. Nellenback v Madison County, 2025 NY Slip Op 02263, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: This is a fact-specific opinion which analyzes the proof necessary to raise a question of fact whether a county social services department had constructive notice of its caseworker’s propensity for the sexual abuse of children. The majority, over an extensive dissent, determined the evidence relied on by the plaintiff was not sufficient to raise a question of fact.

 

,

OVERRULING A 2006 OPINION, A PLAINTIFF IN A DOG-BITE ACTION CAN NOW SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division in this dog-bite case, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reinstating the strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action, overruled the 2006 Court of Appeals case holding that there is no common-law liability for injury caused by a domestic animal:

Plaintiff Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence. She commenced this action to recover damages for her injuries, asserting causes of action sounding in strict liability and negligence. Both causes of action were dismissed, and Flanders asks us to reinstate them.

Under settled law, an owner of a domestic animal who has actual or constructive knowledge of their animal’s vicious propensities will be held strictly liable for harm caused as a result of those propensities. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Goodfellows had constructive knowledge of their dog’s vicious propensities, and so summary judgment should not have been granted to them on the strict liability cause of action.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair. Continued adherence to Bard therefore would not achieve the stability, predictability, and uniformity in the application of the law that the doctrine of stare decisis seeks to promote. Accordingly, we overrule Bard to the extent that it bars negligence liability for harm caused by domestic animals, and reinstate Flanders’s negligence cause of action. * * *

Our decision today means that there is a two-pronged approach to liability for harms caused by animals … .. A plaintiff who suffers an animal-induced injury therefore has a choice. If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may seek to hold them strictly liable. Or they can rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the defendant failed to exercise due care under the circumstances that caused their injury. Of course, a plaintiff might also assert both theories of liability … .  Flanders v Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: A plaintiff in a dog-bite case can now assert both strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action.

 

,

PLAINTIFF INSURER CAN SUE, AS A SUBROGEE, THE CLUB WHICH SERVED ALCOHOL TO ITS INSUREDS, WHO WERE VISIBLY INTOXICATED, PURSUANT TO THE DRAM SHOP ACT; THE INSUREDS WERE INJURED IN A SINGLE CAR ACCIDENT AND THE INSURER PAID OUT MORE THAN $500,000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Love, affirming Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff insurance company, Drive Insurance, could stand in the shoes of its insureds (as a subrogee) and sue the defendant club, Atlantis, pursuant to the Dram Shop  Act. Plaintiff alleged defendant served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated insureds who were then injured in a single-car accident. Plaintiff paid out over $500,000 to the insureds (named Aly, Perez and Abreu-Mateo):

… Drive Insurance alleged that Aly, Perez, and Abreu-Mateo were injured and the vehicle was damaged by Perez, who was visibly intoxicated at the time that Atlantis sold her alcohol. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that Drive Insurance was entitled to assert, as subrogee, a cause of action pursuant to the Dram Shop Act and that Drive Insurance stated a claim against Atlantis for violation of the Dram Shop Act. If the owner of the vehicle and the passengers have causes of action pursuant to the Dram Shop Act against Atlantis to recover damages arising out of the accident on the theory that Atlantis unlawfully served Perez when she was visibly intoxicated, causing the accident and their injuries, which causes of action do not fall into one of the exclusions discussed supra, then, since Drive Insurance alleges that it made payments as to the damaged vehicle and the injured passengers pursuant to the policy, Drive Insurance is entitled to stand in the shoes of its insured and seek indemnification from Atlantis based on Atlantis’s alleged violation of the Dram Shop Act. Drive N.J. Ins. Co. v RT Hospitality Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02188, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: An insurance company which has paid the insureds’ medical bills and vehicle-repair costs after a single-car accident, can, as a subrogee, sue the bar which served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated insureds under the Dram Shop Act.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this slip and fall did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the flower petals on the floor which caused plaintiff to slip and fall. Therefore defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. A lack of constructive notice can be demonstrated by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning practices is not sufficient to raise a question of fact on the issue:

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case must establish, prima facie, that it did not create the condition that allegedly caused the fall or have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to remedy it … . “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . In order to meet its prima facie burden “on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the 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” … . “Reference to general cleaning practices is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged condition … . The defendant did not submit any evidence with respect to specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question “or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed” … . The deposition testimony and affidavit submitted by the defendant as to general cleaning procedures were insufficient to establish lack of constructive notice … . Lisker v Vue Catering, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02196, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: This genre of reversals appeared monthly for many years. Now these decisions are few and far between. The key issue: to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall a defendant must prove the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall. Proof of general cleaning schedules is not enough.​

 

, ,

HOME DEPOT RENTED A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO DROVE THE TRUCK INTO A CROWD OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT; THE MOTION COURT IMPROPERLY TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED TRUE FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS, HERE THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE PROPERLY REFUTED BY AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS SUBMITTED BY HOME DEPOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against defendant Home Depot, which rented a truck to Saipov, referred to in the decision as a “terrorist,”  who drove the truck into a crowd of pedestrians and bicyclists. The First Department noted that the motion court improperly treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. The First Department further noted that, although allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true for analysis of a motion to dismiss, affidavits and other documents submitted by a defendant can properly refute the allegations made in the complaint, and did so here:

… “[F]actual allegations presumed to be true on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 may properly be negated by affidavits and documentary evidence” … .

Plaintiffs’ complaints allege that Home Depot negligently entrusted the vehicle to Saipov when it knew or should have known that his use of the pickup truck could be potentially dangerous to others, and that it should have refused to rent it to him. These allegations, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, do not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment. Moreover, documentary evidence as well as deposition testimony submitted by Home Depot conclusively refute these allegations.

… Home Depot established that it did not have “some special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar” to Saipov which would render his use of the truck “unreasonably dangerous” … . Grandelli v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-15-25

Practice Point: On a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true. However, those allegation can be negated by affidavits, depositions and other documents submitted by a defendant. The submission of such documents does not convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.

 

IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDIING IN A GOLF CART ON THE COURSE, BUT A GOLFER DRIVING A GOLF CART TO HER CAR IN THE COURSE PARKING LOT DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF A COLLISION WITH A CAR EXITING THE PARKING LOT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming one assumption-of-the-risk case and reversing the other, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined, in lawsuits against the owners of the golf courses, a golfer assumes the risk of being struck with a golf ball, but does not assume the risk of injury in a collision while driving a golf cart in the course parking lot:

This Court recently reaffirmed that the primary assumption of risk doctrine must be carefully circumscribed so as not to undermine the legislative comparative fault regime applicable to personal injury actions … . In these appeals, we clarify the scope of two important limitations on the doctrine: its inapplicability to unreasonably enhanced risks and its confinement to cases involving participation in athletics and recreation.

On the same day in June 2020, plaintiffs were injured in separate and very different accidents related to the sport of golf. Plaintiff David Katleski was struck by an errant golf ball while competing in a golf tournament. Plaintiff Mary E. Galante was struck by a car in the parking lot of a golf course before she began to play the course. For the reasons that follow, the primary assumption of risk doctrine precludes Katleski’s negligence claim because the risk of being struck by a mishit ball while golfing is inherent in the game and there is no evidence that the design of the course unreasonably enhanced that risk. Galante’s claim must be reinstated, however, because the primary assumption of risk doctrine has no application to a person who was not participating in a protected athletic or recreative activity at the time of their injury. Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02178, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: In lawsuits against the owners of golf courses: a golfer assumes the risk of being struck by an errant ball while riding in a golf cart on the course; but a golfer does not assume the risk of being struck by a car while driving a golf cart to her car in the course parking lot.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED AND FELL WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A LARGE CRACK, ASSUMED THE RISK OF PLAYING CRICKET ON A CITY-OWNED TENNIS COURT WITH AN IRREGULAR SURFACE; COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED; STRONG DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal of the complaint, determined plaintiff assumed the risk of playing cricket on a city tennis court with a cracked surface. Judge Rivera, in an extensive dissenting opinion, argued that there is a question of fact whether the city failed to maintain the tennis court in a reasonably safe condition:

Plaintiff was injured while playing cricket on a tennis court in a park owned by the City of New York when he ran to catch a batted ball and stepped into a large crack in the asphalt. The Appellate Division correctly held that the risks of tripping and falling while playing on an irregular surface are inherent in the game of cricket … . There is no evidence in the record that the irregularity in the playing field—the cracked and uneven surface of the tennis court—unreasonably enhanced the ordinary risk of playing cricket on an irregular surface … . Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the primary assumption of risk doctrine precludes liability on the part of defendants.

From the dissent:

The primary assumption of risk doctrine does not completely displace a landowner’s traditional duty of care to maintain their premises in a safe condition. Tripping on a fissure that is allegedly the result of years of neglect is not a risk inherent to cricket, or any other sport, and defendants were therefore not entitled to summary judgment on the theory that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by playing on a deteriorated surface. The majority empowers defendants to escape all accountability for their alleged negligence, which put plaintiff and other park users at risk of serious injury. Maharaj v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02143, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: Here the assumption of the risk doctrine was deemed to outweigh any obligation on the city’s part to maintain the surface of a tennis court in a safe condition.

 

,

THE PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY HAD TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF HER CLAIM AND HER ALLEGATION THAT HER INJURIES PREVENTED HER FROM MAKING A TIMELY CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the city should not have been granted. Petitioner did not demonstrate the city had timey actual notice of the nature of the claim and did not submit medical records to support her excuse that her injuries prevented her from filing a timely notice of claim:

Petitioner failed to show that respondents had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the legal theories on which liability was predicated in the notice of claim … . Contrary to her contention, neither the police report, the NYPD complaint, nor the Department of Education occurrence report provided respondents with the facts underlying her theory of liability, as none of these documents linked the accident to any potentially actionable wrongdoing committed by them.

Although petitioner demonstrated that respondents would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving the notice of claim, as the alleged defect has not changed since the incident … , her assertion that the severity of her injuries precluded her from serving notice, without any supporting medical documentation or evidence, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for her delay … .

Petitioner’s submission to the motion court failed to include any medical records detailing her surgery and follow-up visits, and her petition stated that she was able to leave the apartment for her medical treatments and ultimately work remotely. Furthermore, it is not clear from the petition when she retained counsel, and a lack of due diligence in determining the identity of the parties involved is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . Matter of Kayam v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02037, First Dept 4-8-25

Practice Point: An allegation that injuries prevented the filing of a timely notice of claim should be backed up by medical records.

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S STATE UNIVERSITY OWED DECEDENT A DUTY TO WARN HIM OF THE HOSTILITY HARBORED BY ANOTHER STUDENT WHO ULTIMATELY MURDERED DECEDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined there exists a question of fact whether decedent’s university (Binghamton) owed decedent a duty to warn decedent of the hostility toward decedent harbored by another student (Roque), a former friend of the decedent, who murdered decedent:

To hold defendant liable for negligence, claimant must establish that the University owed decedent a duty, breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of decedent’s death … . The threshold issue in any negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legally recognized duty of care … . The existence and scope of a duty are legal questions for the courts to resolve in the first instance … .

… Claimant … is not seeking to hold the University liable for failing to protect decedent simply by virtue of his status as a student on campus … . The crux of claimant’s argument, as we understand it, is that counselors employed by the University’s Counseling Center were negligent in failing to make a threat assessment referral to the Dean of Students’ office upon learning of Roque’s hostility toward decedent in the months before the attack and in failing to warn decedent of Roque’s threats against him. Since the specific acts of negligence occurred during the University’s provision of mental health services — a proprietary function … — we conclude that no special duty need be established to hold the University liable and it is “held to the same duty of care as private individuals and institutions engaging in the same activity” … . * * *

Given that the University had threat assessment and referral procedures in place governing actions to take when faced with a distressed student, we conclude that the University owed decedent a duty to reasonably comply with those policies, if applicable … . Cuomo v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department held a state university may have a “general” (not a “special”) duty to warn a student of hostility harbored by another student.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE HIRING PARTY IS GENERALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THERE IS A NONDELEGABLE-DUTY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE; THE OWNER OF A BAR OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS; HERE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS REPAIRING THE BUILDING FACADE WHEN A CONCRETE BUCKET FELL ON THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant property owner, 6810 Wai, was liable for an action by an independent contractor hired to repair the facade of defendant’s building. Defendant operated a bar on the ground floor of the building. The independent contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff, who was entering the bar:

[T]he well-settled general rule provides that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor because it has no right to supervise or control the work” … . “An exception to this general rule is the nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe” … . “Where, for example, premises are open to the public, the owner has a nondelegable duty to provide the public with a reasonably safe premises and a safe means of ingress and egress” … .

Here, 6810 Wai failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, as its submissions demonstrated that it had a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff. The ground floor hookah bar was open to the public during the construction work, which created a nondelegable duty to the general public to maintain a safe ingress and egress, and, thus, 6810 Wai could be held liable for any negligence of its independent contractor … . Sultan v 6810 Wai, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01966, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The owner of property which is open to the public has a nondelegable duty to maintain safe ingress and egress. Here the building owner operated a bar on the first floor of a building. The owner had hired an independent contractor to repair the facade of the building. The contractor apparently caused a concrete bucket to fall and strike the plaintiff. The building owner could be held liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.

 

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