You are here: / Negligence
, ,

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

 

,

PLAINTIFF COLLEGE SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM BEING STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY A SOCCER BALL, SUFFERING A CONCUSSION, AND THEREAFTER BEING LEFT IN THE GAME, ALLEGEDLY EXACERBATING THE INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff, a college soccer player, assumed the risk of injury caused by being struck in the head by a soccer ball:

As to the Molloy College defendants and the referee defendants, the plaintiff alleged that they were negligent in, among other things, not removing him from the match after he was struck in the head with the soccer ball in the 10th minute of the match. The plaintiff contended that, because he was left in the match after he sustained a concussion on the initial blow to the head, he was exposed to an increased risk of injury, which exacerbated or worsened his injuries or symptoms beyond the initial concussion. * * *

Under the circumstances of this case, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is applicable and bars the plaintiff’s recovery against both the Molloy College defendants and the referee defendants. The evidence relied upon in support of the respective motions of the Molloy College defendants and the referee defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they had no reason to believe that the plaintiff had sustained a concussion and that the plaintiff assumed the risks of any injuries to his head or brain stemming from being hit in the head by a soccer ball during the course of play by voluntarily participating in the soccer match … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any actions or inactions on the part of the Molloy College defendants or the referee defendants unreasonably increased the risk of injury normally associated with playing soccer … . Calderone v College, 2019 NY Slip Op 08169, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

NOTICE OF INTENT WAS TIMELY AND THE CLAIM WAS NOT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, INMATE’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE STATE REINSTATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined that the notice of intent was timely and the notice of intent and the claim are not jurisdictionally defective in this medical malpractice action against the state. The claimant was an inmate when he underwent hip replacement surgery. The claim alleged inadequate treatment led to infection, requiring further surgeries. The date of the accrual of the action was tolled by continuous treatment, and some mistakes concerning the nature of the injuries (i.e., left hip versus right hip) did not prejudice the defendant:

Generally, a medical malpractice claim accrues on the date of the alleged malpractice, but the statute of limitations is tolled “until the end of the course of continuous treatment” … . That toll likewise applies to the time periods contained in Court of Claims Act § 10 (3)  … . Here, the record establishes that claimant was receiving ongoing treatment for his left hip replacement during postoperative follow-up visits through June 12, 2014, when he was transported to a hospital for treatment of the infection that developed at the incision site, which had not been diagnosed during those follow-up visits. We thus conclude that the notice of intent, filed and served on August 22, 2012, was timely inasmuch as it was filed and served within ninety days of the accrual of the claim. The fact that the claim listed a different date of the alleged injury than the notice of intent is a matter related to the contents of the documents, not their timeliness.

We recognize that, generally, the failure to treat a condition is not considered continuous treatment so as to toll the statute of limitations … . In such cases, however, there is a lack of awareness of a need for further treatment and thus no concern relating to the interruption of corrective medical treatment …  . Here, claimant was already being treated for the surgical incision that eventually became infected and, therefore, “further treatment [was] explicitly anticipated by both [defendant’s medical staff] and [claimant,] as manifested in form of . . . regularly scheduled appointment[s]” to monitor the incision and remove staples … . Moreover, this is not truly a failure-to-treat case inasmuch as defendant’s employees did, in fact, attempt to treat the incision area by applying ointment and dressing the area. Gang v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08041, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “DANGER INVITES RESCUE” DOCTRINE APPLIED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY HURT HER BACK TRYING TO PREVENT A PATIENT FROM FALLING WHEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE IMPROPERLY USED A HOYER LIFT TO TRANSFER THE PATIENT FROM A WHEEL CHAIR TO A BED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the “danger invites rescue” doctrine applied. One of defendant’s employees tried to use a Hoyer lift to transfer the patient plaintiff was accompanying from a wheel chair to a bed. The lift began to tip over and plaintiff allegedly hurt her back trying to prevent the patient from falling:

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion with respect to the claim for negligence based on the “danger invites rescue” doctrine (rescue doctrine) … , and we therefore modify the order accordingly. That “doctrine imposes liability upon a party who, by his [or her] culpable act has placed another person in a position of imminent peril which invites a third person, the rescuing plaintiff, to come to his [or her] aid’ ” … , on the ground that “[t]he wrong that [*2]imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim . . . [and] also to his [or her] rescuer” … . For the rescue doctrine to apply, “it is sufficient that [the] plaintiff held a reasonable belief of imminent peril of serious injury to another, and it matters not that the peril feared did not materialize” … .

Here, in support of its motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein she testified that she informed defendant’s employee that two people were needed to move the patient onto the bed using the Hoyer lift, but the employee insisted on using the lift alone and did so in a manner that caused the lift to tilt which, in turn, caused the patient to begin to fall off of it. We conclude that the evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion failed to establish that “plaintiff’s rescue efforts were unreasonable as a matter of law or that plaintiff’s actions were so rash under the circumstances as to constitute an intervening and superseding cause’ of [her] alleged injuries” … . Payne v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08024, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER STRUCK A DISABLED CAR WHICH WAS SIDEWAYS IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY; THE CAR WAS BLACK AND THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED AT NIGHT IN A STEADY RAIN; DEFENDANT DRIVER CLAIMED TO BE GOING THE SPEED LIMIT, 65 MPH; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ (Grice defendants’) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly  denied. Defendant driver, who allegedly was travelling at the speed limit, 65 mph,  struck a disabled car which was sideways in the left lane of a highway. The car was black and the accident happened at night when it was raining. Defendants argued the emergency doctrine applied:

Contrary to the Grice defendants’ contention, their submissions failed to establish as a matter of law that defendant was confronted with a sudden and unexpected emergency situation to which he did not contribute. Although the accident occurred at night and the disabled vehicle was black and did not have its headlights on, the subject area of the highway was not curved and instead was straight and level with no permanent view obstructions or roadway defects to prevent defendant from perceiving the disabled vehicle. In addition, defendant testified at his deposition that he could see the “standard distance” with his headlights illuminating the roadway, yet he was unable to provide a reason why he did not observe the disabled vehicle prior to impact … . The fact that the disabled vehicle was positioned directly ahead of defendant on such an area of the highway with the headlights of defendant’s vehicle illuminating the roadway, “considered in light of [defendant’s] conceded failure to see anything prior to the impact, and his failure to take any steps to avoid the collision . . . , calls into question [his] testimony concerning the speed of his vehicle and his attentiveness as he drove” … . Moreover, inasmuch as the Grice defendants’ submissions established that the subject area of the highway was not well lit, that it was raining steadily rather than merely precipitating lightly, and that the highway was wet, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether defendant, who testified that he was driving at the posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour, was nonetheless operating the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions … . “If [a trier of fact] determines that [defendant’s] speed was unreasonable under the existing weather and road conditions, [the trier of fact] could also conclude that [defendant’s] own unreasonable speed was what deprived him of sufficient time to avoid the collision, thereby preventing him from escaping liability under the emergency doctrine” … . White v Connors, 2019 NY Slip Op 08017, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

,

THE ONE-HALF INCH DEFECT IN A STEP WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined that the 1/2 inch defect in a step was not trivial as a matter of law and the defendant did not demonstrate a lack of notice:

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . Here, the evidence attached to the defendants’ moving papers indicated that there was a defect on the nosing of the step that was created by wear to the step and was approximately ½-inch long and extended down ½-inch on the riser. This alleged defective condition was located on a portion of the step where the plaintiff had to stand while twisting her body to close an exterior door. …

… [T]he defendants’ moving papers failed to eliminate triable issue of facts as to whether the condition had existed for a sufficient period of time for it to have been discovered and remedied by the defendants in the exercise of reasonable care … . Coker v McMillan, 2019 NY Slip Op 07948, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

THE CITY HAD CLEARED A PATH FREE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK; PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WHEN SHE STEPPED BACKWARDS INTO AN AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CLEARED TO AVOID AN UNLEASHED DOG; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted. There was a clear path on the sidewalk. Plaintiff slipped and fell when she stepped backward into an area of the sidewalk which had not been cleared to avoid an unleashed dog:

” To render a municipality liable for an injury caused by the presence of snow and ice on the streets,'” it must be established that ” the condition constitutes an unusual or dangerous obstruction to travel and that either the municipality caused the condition or a sufficient time had elapsed to afford a presumption of the existence of the condition and an opportunity to effect its removal'” … . This rule applies to sidewalks … . “Generally, whether a municipality was negligent in permitting extraordinary accumulations of snow to exist for an unreasonable period of time or whether it had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the condition are questions for the jury” … .

Here, in opposition to the City’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City had constructive notice of the ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall and whether the ice condition was unusual or dangerous. The evidence indicated that a clear path had been shoveled on the sidewalk, but that, due to repeated snow storms, snow and ice remained in the area of the sidewalk close to the street. When the plaintiff stepped backward to avoid the unleashed dog, she stepped in the area of the sidewalk closer to the street, upon which there was a two-inch thick patch of ice of unspecified size. There is no evidence that the patch of ice was unusual or dangerous. Cespedes v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07943, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT, REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TWO DRIVERS’ NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-passenger’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted, despite questions of fact about whether either driver was negligent:

The right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers (see CPLR 3212[g] …). Here, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on their motion, and in opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . It is uncontested that the injured plaintiff was a passenger seated in the rear passenger seat of the Freed vehicle. While both drivers involved in the accident submitted affidavits in which each maintained that they were free from fault, neither driver suggested that the injured plaintiff bore any fault in the happening of the accident … . Romain v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07885, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

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