You are here: / Negligence

VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED BEHIND A DISABLED VEHICLE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Perez defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted. Perez stopped his vehicle in the left lane behind a disabled vehicle when the driver of the disabled vehicle flagged him down. Plaintiff came to a stop behind the Perez vehicle and was attempting to go around the Perez vehicle when plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from behind by the Chen vehicle. The Second Department held that the Perez vehicle furnished the condition for the traffic accident but did not cause the accident. The accident was caused by Chen’s failure to maintain a safe distance:

This evidence demonstrated that Perez’s conduct of stopping his vehicle in the left lane of travel with its hazard lights engaged was not a proximate cause of the collision between Chen’s SUV and the plaintiff’s vehicle, but rather merely furnished the condition or occasion for it … . Since the plaintiff was able to safely bring his vehicle to a complete stop behind Perez’s vehicle, where it remained stopped for approximately two minutes prior to the accident, any purported negligence on Perez’s part was not a proximate cause of the collision between Chen’s SUV and the plaintiff’s vehicle or of the plaintiff’s injuries … . The sole proximate cause of the accident was Chen’s failure to maintain a safe driving speed and distance behind the plaintiff’s vehicle … . Kante v Tong Fei Chen, 2019 NY Slip Op 07390, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON PAINTED AREAS OF A CROSS-WALK IN DEFENDANT’S PARKING LOT; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PAINTED AREAS WERE SLIPPERY WHEN WET BECAUSE SAND HAD NOT BEEN ADDED TO THE PAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the painted areas of a cross-walk in a parking lot constituted a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff’s expert presented evidence the painted areas were very slippery when wet and sand should have been added to the paint:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the painted lines constituted a dangerous or defective condition … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his expert, who opined that the painted surface was “non-slip” when dry, but became very slippery when wet. The plaintiff’s expert further opined that when coatings are applied in an area where people are expected to walk, particularly areas exposed to wet conditions, either sand is added to provide traction or a coating that is slip resistant under wet conditions is used. He also noted that in other areas of the parking lot where the accident occurred, a different coating was used, and that coating was slip resistant under wet conditions. Rojecki v Genting N.Y., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07431, Second Dept 10-2019

 

,

POST-VERDICT INTEREST IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED AT THREE PERCENT PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the Public Authorities Law allows only three percent interest from the date of the verdict in this action against the New York City Transit Authority. Plaintiff was injured while driving when a piece of metal fell from elevated tracks through the windshield. The nearly two-million dollar verdict was affirmed:

After a trial on the issue of damages, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sums of $800,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering over a 15-year period. The defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the total sum of $1,967,633.08, including interest in the sum of $64,249.90. * * *

… [T]he judgment incorrectly applied an interest rate in excess of the maximum legal rate of three percent per annum to the plaintiff’s award against the defendants (see Public Authorities Law § 1212[6] … ). We therefore remit the matter … for recalculation of interest at the rate of three percent per annum from the date of the verdict … . Rojas v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 07430, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

,

PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AS SHE WAS CROSSING THE ENTRANCE TO A PARKING LOT; DEFENDANT TESTIFIED HE NEVER SAW THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HER MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ALLEGING PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-pedestrian’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted, and defendant’s affirmative defense alleged plaintiff was comparatively negligent should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was halfway through the entrance to a parking lot when defendant turned to enter the parking lot:

The injured plaintiff testified at her deposition, a transcript of which was also submitted in support of the plaintiffs’ motion, that she had been walking on the sidewalk along Ardsley Road. She intended to cross the entrance to the parking lot to continue walking on the sidewalk along Ardsley Road. She testified that, before attempting to cross the entrance to the lot, she stopped and looked in both directions to check for approaching vehicles, and that she did not see any vehicles before she stepped into the entrance to the lot.

The plaintiffs also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of a nonparty witness who testified that, just before impact, he observed the injured plaintiff turn her body to face the defendants’ vehicle and put her hands up in front of her. He then saw the vehicle strike the injured plaintiff and launch her into the air. The photographs, in conjunction with the testimony of the defendant driver and the nonparty witness, demonstrated that the injured plaintiff was struck after she had already walked more than halfway across the entrance to the parking lot.

A driver is bound to see what is there to be seen with the proper use of his or her senses … . Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting evidence that the defendant driver never saw the injured plaintiff before striking her … . Higashi v M&R Scarsdale Rest., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07240, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CRANE-ACCIDENT CASE; THE ESPINAL ‘LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM’ CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COMPANY WHICH REFURBISHED AND MAINTAINED THE CRANE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted in this crane-accident case. The First Department also held that the negligence action against the company (Hoffman) which refurbished and maintained the crane, based upon the Espinal “launched an instrument of harm” theory, should not have been dismissed:

The collapse of a crane constitutes a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . A plaintiff need not be directly injured by a portion of the crane for the Labor Law to apply — injuries that occur while trying to avoid being struck during a hoisting accident may qualify … . While plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition varied somewhat from his 50-h testimony, he repeatedly cautioned that the accident happened so fast it was difficult for him to describe exactly how it occurred. In any event, no matter which version is accepted, Labor Law § 240(1) applies to the … defendant … .

Hoffman refurbished the subject crane one year before the accident and performed maintenance on it several times thereafter. Although a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third person … , an exception exists where a contractor who undertakes to perform services pursuant to a contract negligently creates or exacerbates a dangerous condition so as to have “launched a force or instrument of harm” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 141-142 [2002] …). Hoffman failed to adequately address the findings of the independent crane company that conducted the post-accident investigation, which concluded that several maintenance and repair issues contributed to over wear on the crane’s wire ropes … . DeGidio v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07218, First Dept 10-8-1

 

,

THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA LAW IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE, THEREFORE NEW YORK LAW APPLIES AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR A CHOICE OF LAW ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined New York applies in this action stemming from an accident in Pennsylvania:

New York law controls the resolution of its motion and this appeal. “[B]ecause New York is the forum state, i.e., the action was commenced here, New York’s choice-of-law principles govern the outcome of this matter’ ”  … . “The first step in any case presenting a potential choice of law issue is to determine whether there is an actual conflict between the laws of the jurisdictions involved” … . Here, defendant failed to establish the existence of any conflict between New York and Pennsylvania law with respect to the issues raised in the motion, and therefore we need not engage in any choice of law analysis … . Farnham v MIC Wholesale Ltd, 2019 NY Slip Op 07178, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although there was a dangerous condition, defendant, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not responsible for its repair:

… [D]efendant submitted the lease between defendant and plaintiff’s employer, which provided that the lessee was responsible for all maintenance and repair of the premises except for “Major Improvements,” which the lease defined as “any major repair (repairs that are not of the nature of ordinary maintenance such as local patches, caulking, flashing)” including “replacement of the roof, replacement of load-bearing walls and foundations, [and] repairs to the concrete floor.” We conclude that maintenance of the allegedly bent or defective metal strip was not a “Major Improvement[]” under the lease … .

Further, the record established that defendant relinquished control of the premises. The fact that, under the lease, defendant reserved the right to enter the leased premises for purposes of inspection and performing “Major Improvements,” is ” insufficient to establish the requisite degree of control necessary for the imposition of liability with respect to an out-of-possession landlord’ ” … . “[A]n out-of-possession landlord who reserves that right may be held liable for injuries to a third party only where a specific statutory violation exists” … , and plaintiff failed to allege a specific statutory violation pertaining to the metal strip … . Addeo v Clarit Realty, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 07163, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

,

NO ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS WERE PLED SO THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AND WHETHER THE AREA WAS SLIPPERY BEFORE THE STORM, PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, in this slip and fall case, determined: (1) the snow removal contractor’s (Fitzgerald’s) motion for summary judgment was properly granted because no Espinal exception was pled; and (2) there were questions of fact whether there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall and whether there were slippery areas prior to the storm:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). Although there are three well-established exceptions to that rule (see id. at 140), plaintiff did not allege facts in his complaint or bill of particulars that would establish the applicability of any of those exceptions, and thus Fitzgerald was not required to affirmatively negate the possible application of any of them in order to meet her initial burden … . Instead, Fitzgerald had to demonstrate only that plaintiff was not a party to the snow removal contract and that she therefore owed no duty to him, which she accomplished by submitting a copy of the contract … . …

… [D]efendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, who testified that snow and rain had been predicted that day, but during the time leading up to his fall it was merely overcast. Thus, defendants’ own submissions raise an issue of fact whether there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall …. Furthermore, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of an assistant store manager, who testified that there were “a few” “different” “slippery spots” in the parking lot when she arrived for her shift at 2:00 p.m. on the day of plaintiff’s fall, thus raising issues of fact whether the slippery condition preexisted the alleged storm … , and whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition … . Govenettio v Dolgencorp of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06907, Fourth Dept 9-27-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO FIX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff, a cleaner employed by a nonparty to clean a NYC school, tripped and fell as he was walking across the auditorium stage to turn on the lights. The defendant argued it could not be liable because plaintiff was injured by the condition he was responsible to fix:

A plaintiff cannot recover against a defendant for common-law negligence if he or she was injured by the dangerous condition which he or she had been hired to remedy … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants established that the plaintiff was merely walking to the rear of the stage in order to turn on the lights in the auditorium. Thus, the plaintiff was not engaged in the type of cleaning activity aimed at eliminating the risk presented by the test board that had been left on the floor … . Additionally, the plaintiff’s duty to clean visible debris off the floor had not yet arisen, because the plaintiff testified that due to the dim lighting condition in the auditorium, he had not observed the test board before his fall. Torres v Board of Educ. of the City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06818, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted:

Although the photographs submitted in support of the petition may have demonstrated that the City had prior knowledge of the defect in the asphalt, “actual knowledge of the defect is not tantamount to actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim, since the City was not aware of the petitioner’s accident, her injuries, and the facts underlying her theory of liability” … .

A lack of due diligence in determining the identity of the owner of the property upon which the subject accident occurred is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . …

In addition, the petitioner failed to satisfy her initial burden of showing that the City would not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the delay … . Matter of Perez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06774, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

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