You are here: / Negligence
,

A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SUB-PAR PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT SOUNDS IN CONTRACT LAW, NOT NEGLIGENCE; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the negligence cause of action was really a breach of contract action and therefore the negligence cause of action should have been dismissed. The underlying contract was for demolition and construction work and the complaint alleged damage by the diversion of water:

… [W]e agree with J. Luke [defendant demolition-construction contractor] that  [the negligence cause of action] should have been dismissed. Town Homes [defendant property owner] denominated that claim as one for negligence, alleging that J. Luke deviated from accepted standards of care by failing to perform contracted-for demolition and construction work “in a good workmanlike manner.” Supreme Court correctly categorized those assertions as a claim for negligent performance of contract; the problem is “that a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” … . A failure to plead a cognizable claim would not warrant summary judgment if Town Homes subsequently made out a viable cause of action … . Town Homes never suggested that J. Luke owed it a duty of care independent from the contract, however, and confirmed in its opposition to J. Luke’s motion that the issue was whether J. Luke rendered subpar performance under the contract. Accordingly, in the absence of any indication that J. Luke owed an independent duty to Town Homes arising “from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract” … . 517 Union St. Assoc. LLC v Town Homes of Union Sq. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07461, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALTHOUGH POORLY DRAFTED, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS DEPARTED FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR A SPINAL FUSION PROCEDURE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the expert affidavit submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, although not well-drafted, raised a question of fact whether defendants’ departed from the standard of care for the placement of hardware in a spinal fusion procedure:

… [P]laintiff submitted the expert affidavit of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who opined, based upon his review of the relevant medical records and radiological images, including a CT scan taken shortly after the surgery, that Pedersen had improperly positioned the L4 pedicle screws into the L3-L4 facet joint and that such improper placement constituted a deviation from the standard of care that ultimately caused Yerich to develop spinal and foraminal stenosis at L3-L4. Plaintiffs’ expert asserted that placing pedicle screws through the facet joints causes “damage[ to] the joint, reduces movement, [and] makes the spine unstable[,] which results in . . . spinal stenosis and foraminal stenosis requiring fusion,” as happened here. Although plaintiffs’ expert affidavit is not a model of precise drafting, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs …, we find that plaintiffs’ expert affidavit raises a question of fact as to whether Pedersen improperly positioned the L4 pedicle screws through the facet joint, thereby causing injury. Yerich v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2019 NY Slip Op 07466, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

SURGEON, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF PLAINTIFF’S PROCEDURE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS USUAL CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN PERFORMING A HERNIA REPAIR, DEFENSE JUDGMENT REVERSED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict in a medical malpractice case, determined the trial court should not have allowed the defendant doctor, who had no independent memory of the hernia surgery he performed on plaintiff, to testify about his usual custom and practice, or habit. The surgery involved placement of a mesh patch on the abdominal wall. In this case a portion of the patch had come off the wall and adhered to internal organs:

“Custom and practice evidence draws its probative value from the repetition and unvarying uniformity of the procedure involved as it depends on the inference that a person who regularly follows a strict routine in relation to a particular repetitive practice is likely to have followed that same strict routine at a specific date or time relevant to the litigation” … . To justify the introduction of habit evidence, “a party must be able to show on voir dire, to the satisfaction of the court, that the party expects to prove a sufficient number of instances of the conduct in question” … . …

Although habit evidence may be admissible in a medical malpractice action where the defendant physician makes the requisite showing, here, the evidence did not demonstrate that the defendant’s suturing of the Kugel Composix mesh patch represented a deliberate and repetitive practice by a person in complete control of the circumstances … . …

Although the defendant testified that he had performed hundreds of hernia repairs using mesh patches, he could not remember how many times he had used the Kugel Composix mesh patch before he performed the injured plaintiff’s surgery. He testified at his deposition that he had used the Kugel Composix mesh patch at least “a couple times” before he performed the injured plaintiff’s procedure. Although the defendant contends that the procedure for suturing the Kugel Composix mesh patch was the same as for other mesh patches, the Kugel Composix mesh patch had features that were different from other mesh patches, including a “pocket” intended to protect the intestines. Martin v Timmins, 2019 NY Slip Op 07391. Second Dept 10-16-19

 

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

 

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