You are here: / Negligence
,

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

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HERSELF MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, HER DAUGHTER, WHO WITNESSED THE FALL, PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (New York City Housing Authority’s, NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s daughter, who witnessed the fall, provided sufficient evidence of the sidewalk defect:

“If a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of a fall, any finding of negligence would be based upon speculation”  … . “That does not mean that a plaintiff must have personal knowledge of the cause of his or her fall” … . “It only means that a plaintiff’s inability to establish the cause of his or her fall — whether by personal knowledge or by other admissible proof — is fatal to a cause of action based on negligence” … . …

In support of its motion, NYCHA submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s daughter, Galina Moiseyeva (hereinafter Galina), who testified that she saw the plaintiff fall because of a “crack” or “gap” in the sidewalk, which made the sidewalk a “different level.” Further, Galina, who lived with the plaintiff in the premises abutting the sidewalk, testified that she walked along the sidewalk while traveling to and from work, and was previously aware of the alleged crack in the sidewalk. Contrary to NYCHA’s contentions, the alleged failure of the plaintiff and Galina to identify the exact location of the plaintiff’s alleged fall on a photograph shown at their depositions and hearings pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, which photograph was taken the day after the alleged accident occurred and after NYCHA had allegedly covered the subject part of the sidewalk with plywood, did not establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of her fall. Under the circumstances, NYCHA failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff fell due to the alleged defective condition of the sidewalk … . Moiseyeva v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 06766, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

LANDLORD DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE LEASE REQUIRED THE TENANT TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW, THEREFORE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landlord did not submit a copy of the (expired) lease:

“Generally, when a tenant remains in possession [of the leased premises] after the expiration of a lease, pursuant to common law, there is implied a continua[tion] of the tenancy on the same terms and subject to the same covenants as those contained in the original instrument”‘… . By failing to submit a copy of the expired lease in support of their motion, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no contractual obligation to remove snow and ice from the property … . Even assuming that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have a copy of the expired lease in their possession, the defendants inexplicably failed to submit a copy of a lease entered into between them and other tenants of the property, notwithstanding the deposition testimony of the defendant … that he has rented the property since he purchased it in 1996, that he entered into a lease with each tenant, and that the leases specifically provided that it was the tenants’ responsibility to remove snow and ice. Miske v Selvaggi, 2019 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

,

THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ARGUED HE WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF RAN INTO THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AS IT WAS BEING OPENED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined, because plaintiff in this bicycle-vehicle traffic accident case affirmatively argued he was not comparatively negligent, the issue of comparative negligence was properly considered on plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff ran into the door of defendant’s car as it was being opened. The plaintiff did not eliminate all triable issue of fact concerning his comparative negligence:

“Although a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of his or her own comparative negligence to be entitled to partial summary judgment as to a defendant’s liability”… , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided where, as here, “the plaintiff specifically argued the absence of comparative fault in support of his [or her] motion” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident … . “A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself in a dangerous position” … . In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care while riding his bicycle. Further, although the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate his freedom from comparative fault to establish his entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability … , the plaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether any such negligence caused or contributed to the accident … . Flores v Rubenstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 06747, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendant’s answer in this slip and fall case had been struck, the defendant should not have been precluded from presenting evidence on damages:

… Supreme Court … struck the answer and scheduled an inquest on the issue of damages. At the inquest, following direct testimony by the plaintiff, the court denied defense counsel’s request to cross-examine the plaintiff, since the defendant’s answer had been stricken. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $267,221.77. …

“[A] defendant whose answer is stricken as a result of a default admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages” … . “Accordingly, where a judgment against a defaulting defendant is sought by motion to the court, the defendant is entitled, at an inquest to determine damages, to cross-examine witnesses, give testimony, and offer proof in mitigation of damages” … . Here, since the Supreme Court did not provide such an opportunity to the defendant, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages … . Dejesus v H.E. Broadway, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06743, Second Dept 9-25-19

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENCE, WAS THE APPROPRIATE THEORY; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2 1/2 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent’s injuries were alleged to relate to defendant-hospital’s improper restraint of plaintiff’s decedent (apparently to keep him from getting up from his hospital bed). Defendant argued the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions had passed. The Second Department held that defendant did not demonstrate that a doctor had ordered the restraints; therefore the defendant had not made out a prima facie case that the action sounded in medical malpractice as opposed to negligence:

” The critical question in determining whether an action sounds in medical malpractice or simple negligence is the nature of the duty to the plaintiff which the defendant is alleged to have breached'” … . ” When the duty arises from the physician-patient relationship or is substantially related to medical treatment, the breach gives rise to an action sounding in medical malpractice, not simple negligence'” … . ” The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred under the 2½-year statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions (see CPLR 214-a). Since the defendant did not present any evidence that a doctor ordered the decedent to be restrained at any point prior to or during the subject incident, the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff’s claims related to medical treatment, as opposed to the failure of hospital staff to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to prevent harm to the decedent … . ​Wesolowski v St. Francis Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06646, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, , ,

GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS TIRE-MALFUNCTION OUT-OF-STATE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Goodyear’s motion to dismiss the products liability complaint for lack of jurisdiction should have been granted. Plaintiff, a New York resident, was injured when a tire manufactured by Goodyear allegedly malfunctioned causing the car to overturn in Virginia. The Second Department held that plaintiff did not rebut Goodyear’s argument that it did not have significant affiliations with New York and noted that a corporation’s registration with the New York State Department of State does not confer jurisdiction on New York:

“While the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, the plaintiffs, in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” … . “General jurisdiction in New York is provided for in CPLR 301, which allows a court to exercise such jurisdiction over persons, property, or status as might have been exercised heretofore'”… . A court may exercise general jurisdiction over foreign corporations “when their affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State” … .

Here, in opposition to Goodyear’s motion, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over Goodyear existed under CPLR 301. The plaintiff did not rebut the evidence submitted by Goodyear showing that Goodyear’s affiliations with New York are not so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home here … . Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “a corporate defendant’s registration to do business in New York and designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process in New York does not constitute consent by the corporation to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation’s affiliations with New York” … . Aybar v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06584, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED THE CONCLUSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over two dissents, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendants in this personal injury case stemming from a potholder catching fire. The Appellate Division had reversed because plaintiff’s deposition testimony conflicted with the conclusions of plaintiff’s expert. The facts were not discussed:

The courts below erred in granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motions. Although the plaintiff’s deposition testimony partially contradicted the factual conclusions reached by her expert witnesses, the expert opinions were based upon other record evidence and were neither speculative nor conclusory. Insofar as plaintiff raised genuine issues of fact on the element of causation, summary judgment should not have been granted on that ground … . We remit for Supreme Court to consider the alternative grounds for summary judgment defendants raised in their motions and neither Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division reached.

… Judges ]Rivera, Stein, Fahey and Wilson concur. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Garcia and Feinman dissent and vote to affirm for reasons stated in the Appellate Division memorandum decision (Salinas v World Houseware Producing Co., Ltd., 166 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2018]). Salinas v World Houseware Producing Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06537, CtApp 9-12-19

 

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