You are here: / Negligence
,

PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO MOP UP TRACKED IN SNOW AND WATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant property owner (a school) was properly found negligent in failing to mop up tracked in snow and water in this slip and fall case. Defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict should not have been granted:

Although a defendant is not required to “provide a constant remedy to the problem of water being tracked into a building during inclement weather, and has no obligation to cover all of its floors with mats or to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in precipitation” … , a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action … . Here, evidence was presented at trial demonstrating that the defendant had actual notice of the wet condition in the area where the plaintiff fell approximately an hour before the accident, yet failed to remedy it. …

Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and affording her every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead rational individuals to the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s accident … .  Allen v Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 06462, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS LIABLE FOR HER BABY’S BRAIN DAMAGE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S AMBULANCE BROKE DOWN ON THE WAY TO THE HOSPITAL, CAUSING A DELAY IN DELIVERY; DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY, WHICH PROVIDED THE AMBULANCE, WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF; THE MUNICIPALITY CAN NOT BE HELD LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint against the airport emergency medical service alleging liability for a delay in getting plaintiff to the hospital was properly dismissed. Plaintiff suffered complications giving birth which were alleged to have resulted in the baby suffering brain damage. The ambulance provided by defendant broke down and plaintiff was transferred to another ambulance. The defendant was deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the plaintiff and the municipal defendant. Therefore the defendant could not be held liable:

“Protecting health and safety is one of municipal government’s most important duties” … , and emergency medical services “have widely been considered one of government’s critical duties” … . …

… [D]efendant could not be held liable to the plaintiffs unless it owed them a special duty … . One way to prove the existence of a special duty is by showing that the defendant assumed a “special relationship” with the plaintiff beyond the duty that is owed to the public generally … . “The plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing the existence of a special relationship by proving all of the following elements: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) the party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … . Of the four factors, the “justifiable reliance” element is particularly “critical” because it “provides the essential causative link between the special duty assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury” … . Halberstam v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2019 NY Slip Op 06479, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, , ,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT ADMISSIBLE AS ADMISSIONS OR BUSINESS RECORDS; THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case and ordering a new trial, determined that hearsay statements to the effect that plaintiff’s decedent had signed an “against medical advice [AMA]” form when he allegedly refused treatment at defendant hospital were not admissible under the Dead Man’s Statute or as statements against interest or admissions, or as business records:

“A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient” ( … see CPLR 4518[a]). Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, the defendants failed to offer foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c) … . …

If an entry in the medical records “is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to the diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'”  … . Here … the entry clearly states that the decedent’s primary care physician, not the decedent himself, was the source of the information … . …

Pursuant to CPLR 4519, otherwise known as the Dead Man’s Statute, “[u]pon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his [or her] own behalf, of the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication.” Here, both [witnesses] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute … [and] they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. …

The defendants argue that the plaintiff waived the protections of the Dead Man’s Statute by eliciting the communications at issue. However, “[t]he executor does not waive rights under the statute by taking the opponent’s deposition” … . … Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the declaration of the decedent did not fall within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule because the defendants failed to establish that the subject statement was against the decedent’s interest when made … . Moreover, where the Dead Man’s Statute renders a witness’s testimony inadmissible, “the fact that the testimony would fall within an exception to the hearsay rule is simply irrelevant” … . Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAIVED THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY PLACING THE CONDITION OF HER KNEES INTO CONTROVERSY IN THIS ACCIDENT CASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined plaintiff had placed the condition of her knees into controversy in this accident case and defendants were therefore entitled to discovery re: prior treatment of her knees. The facts were not discussed:

Plaintiff affirmatively placed the condition of her knees into controversy through allegations that the underlying accident caused difficulties in walking and standing that affect her ambulatory capacity and resultant damages … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, plaintiff therefore waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to the prior treatment of her knees and the discovery sought by authorizations pertaining to the treatment of plaintiff’s knees is “material and necessary” to defendants’ defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]). Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to provide discovery related to the prior treatment of her knees. Brito v Gomez, 2019 NY Slip Op 06452, CtApp 9-10-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHICH PRECLUDES DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Defendants’ presented evidence of the janitorial schedule for a particular day which was deemed sufficient to preclude liability because plaintiff did not demonstrate the schedule was manifestly unreasonable.  And plaintiff’s testimony the defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet condition on the stairs:

Defendants’ superintendent offered testimony as to the janitorial schedule to be followed on a particular day. An established reasonable cleaning routine precludes the imposition of liability … . Where, as here, the incident occurs outside of the scheduled cleaning routine, plaintiff’s failure to raise a factual issue that such routine was manifestly unreasonable so as to require altering it warrants dismissal of the complaint … .

Furthermore, plaintiff testified that there was no wet condition on the stairs when he left the building, that upon his return a short while later he observed an alleged wet condition on the stairs, that he did not notify anyone of such condition, and that as a result of this condition he slipped and fell on the stairs as he was leaving the building a second time. Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrates that defendants did not have actual notice of the purported wet condition, or constructive notice given that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it … . Thomas v Sere Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06443, First Dept 9-3-19

,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant’s in this elevator accident case. Plaintiff alleged the elevator door closed too fast and his thumb was caught in the closing door. Plaintiff alleged he had complained to the building superintendent, a building maintenance employee and the management company about the door closing too fast. Both parties submitted affidavits from experts:

The superintendent-in-training on the date of the accident testified that he did not receive any complaints regarding problems with the elevator door. The field mechanic for [the elevator service company] testified that he did not complete any repair work with respect to the door opening and closing too quickly. He did, however, replace the elevator shoe which is a necessary component for the elevator door to be able to close … .

Plaintiff … testified that prior to his accident he had complained to the then superintendent, another building maintenance employee, and the management company numerous times regarding the velocity with which the elevator door closed. Plaintiff testified further that during one of his conversations with the management company regarding the elevator door, he was told that management would send a service company out to address the issue. Additionally, plaintiff testified that approximately two months before his accident, he witnessed a friend get hit in the shoulder by the fast closing elevator door, and that plaintiff and his mother reported this incident to the then superintendent and the management company.

The parties also presented conflicting expert affidavits regarding the potential causes of the alleged elevator door malfunction, including the purpose of the elevator shoe, and the relevance of the velocity with which the door closed as it pertained to the cause of plaintiff’s injury, which only further precludes a grant of summary judgment … . Mable v 384 E. Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06442, First Dept 9-3-19

 

, ,

COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court did not have authority to dismiss the medical malpractice action pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute in the absence of a 90-notice. The court further noted that, although dismissal for failure to comply with discovery demands was not warranted, the preclusion of further discovery was appropriate:

With regard to CPLR 3216, “the courts have no authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, whether on the ground of general delay, or for failure to serve and file a note of issue, unless there has first been served a [90 day notice]” … . Here, it is undisputed that neither the Supreme Court nor the defendant served the requisite 90-day notice upon the plaintiff. …

… . [D]smissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) was unwarranted as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to limit his disclosure demands. The remedy of dismissal is “only warranted where there has been a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful and contumacious” … . The sanction of dismissal is available for the willful and contumacious failure to disclose … , which did not occur here. The plaintiff submitted to a deposition by the defendants. However, the lengthy pendency of this action, the dispute over the plaintiff’s overbroad demands for disclosure, and his refusal to tailor those demands in accordance with prior orders of the court, compels the conclusion that further disclosure has been forfeited. Rezk v New York Presbyt. Hospital/N.Y. Weill Cornell Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06426, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff had not moved pursuant to CPLR 1202 to be appointed guardian ad litem for her comatose husband (Zheng) prior to commencing the action:

… [T]he mere fact that this action was commenced before the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 1202 to be appointed guardian ad litem of her husband does not provide grounds for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3). An incapacitated individual who has not been judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person … , and CPLR 1202(a) expressly contemplates that a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem may be made “at any stage in the action.” Thus, there is no strict legal requirement that the plaintiff should have been appointed guardian before the commencement of this action. While it would have been better for the action to have been commenced in Zheng’s name, rather than by the plaintiff “as Proposed Guardian Ad Litem of [Zheng],” the defect is not fatal, particularly given the relatively short delay between the commencement of the action and the filing of the plaintiff’s guardianship motion (see CPLR 2001). Linghua Li v Xiao, 2019 NY Slip Op 06388, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

,

TWO YOUNG MEN DID NOT REALIZE THE CONCRETE THEY WERE MOVING WAS A CESSPOOL COVER; ONE FELL IN AND THE OTHER JUMPED IN TO RESCUE HIM; BOTH DIED FROM CHEMICAL ASPHYXIATION; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE COVER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, WHETHER THE CESSPOOL CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND WHETHER THE RESCUE ATTEMPT WAS FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the property owner (Cruzate) was negligent and whether the cesspool contractor (Port Jefferson) launched an instrument of harm. Two young men were planning to build a campfire in the backyard of a rental property owned by Cruzate. The men did not realize the pieces of concrete they decided to move were cesspool covers. One of the men (Fuentes) fell in, the other (Castro) jumped in to rescue him. Both were asphyxiated by chemicals that had been added when the cesspool was serviced:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the cesspool cover was in a defective condition because Port Jefferson Cesspool had improperly replaced it after servicing the cesspool, enabling Suarez to get his fingers underneath the cover and lift it … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his expert, who opined that, on the date of the accident, the cover was not secure to the ground. According to the expert, there was soil between the cover and the cesspool, so that the cover did not rest firmly on the cesspool, which was a substantial factor in the deaths of Castro and Fuentes. Moreover, Cruzate testified that he hired Port Jefferson Cesspool to service the cesspool, supervised the work, observed Port Jefferson Cesspool lift the cesspool cover, and was present when the work was completed. Therefore, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Cruzate had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the cesspool cover … . …

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Port Jefferson Cesspool launched a force of harm and created a dangerous condition by improperly replacing the cement cover after servicing the cesspool (see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136). The plaintiff’s expert opined, as discussed above, that there was soil between the cover and the cesspool, so that the cover did not rest firmly on the cesspool, and that this was a substantial factor in the deaths of Castro and Fuentes. …

… [T]he fact that Castro decided to jump into the cesspool in an attempt to save his friend does not necessarily act as a bar to recovery. In 1921, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, established that, with regard to the principle of foreseeability, “[d]anger invites rescue. . . . The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperiled victim; it is also a wrong to his rescuer” (Wagner v International Ry. Co., 232 NY at 180 … ) this principle applies where “the actions of the injured person were reasonable in view of the emergency situation,” that is, where the rescuer “acted as a reasonably prudent person would act in the same situation, even if it later appears that the rescuer did not make the safest choice or exercise the best judgment” … . Calderon v Cruzate, 2019 NY Slip Op 06377, Second Detp 8-28-19

 

, ,

THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED BOARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DROWNING CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DIED AFTER GOING OVER A SUBMERGED DAM; ALTHOUGH THE BOARD WAS NOT LIABLE PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE DAM UNDER AN ESPINAL EXCEPTION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BOARD OWNED THE DAM (A DANGEROUS CONDITION); THE BOARD IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined soil the soil conservation and watershed board’s motion for summary judgment in this wrongful death case was properly denied. The board operated and maintained a dam pursuant to a contract with a federal agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The dam was submerged and plaintiff’s decedent sustained drowning injuries which led to his death after he waded into the water and went over the dam. Supreme Court should not have held that the board had entirely displaced the NRCS responsibilities for operation and maintenance of the dam (and therefore was liable under contract pursuant the third Espinal exception). However the board did not demonstrate it did not own the dam and summary judgment was properly denied on that ground. In addition the board was separate and distinct from the conservation districts. So granting summary judgment to the districts did not require the same relief for the board. Finally the court noted that the assumption of risk doctrine applies only to sporting events and had no applicability to these facts:

… “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 138) although, as relevant here, the third exception to that rule applies where the contracting party has “entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . * * * We … conclude that “the contract between [the Board] and the [NRCS] was not so comprehensive and exclusive that it entirely displaced the [NRCS’s] duty to maintain the premises safely, such that [the Board] owed a duty to [decedent]” … . …

While the Board established that it did not own the creek or the banks adjacent thereto … , its submissions are insufficient to establish as a matter of law that it did not own the subject dam, which allegedly constituted and created the dangerous condition … .

The Court of Appeals has made clear that, “[a]s a general rule, application of assumption of the risk should be limited to cases appropriate for absolution of duty, such as personal injury claims arising from sporting events, sponsored athletic and recreative activities, or athletic and recreational pursuits that take place at designated venues” … . Here, decedent was not engaging in a sporting event or recreative activity that was sponsored or otherwise supported by the Board, nor was he wading and swimming at a designated venue … . Suzanne P. v Joint Bd. of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 06343, 8-22-19

 

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