You are here: / Negligence
, ,

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE APPEARED TO BE INTOXICATED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS AND COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. There was sharply conflicting testimony about how the accident happened and whether defendant fled the scene. A witness, Stephen, who allegedly chased defendant down after the accident was not allowed to testify that defendant appeared to be intoxicated:

We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in excluding Stephen’s testimony that defendant exhibited indicia of intoxication during their interaction immediately after the accident and that, in his opinion, she was intoxicated. Although defendant’s failure to remain at the scene meant that Stephen was the only witness who had an opportunity to observe defendant and interact with her after the accident, the court prohibited Stephen from testifying about his observations of defendant on the ground that he was not an “expert” in signs of intoxication. Contrary to the court’s ruling, it is well settled that a lay witness may testify regarding his or her observation that another individual exhibited signs of intoxication … , and also regarding his or her opinion that another individual was intoxicated … . …

… [P]laintiffs should have been permitted to present Stephen’s testimony with respect to whether defendant appeared to be intoxicated, which would allow the jury to consider whether and to what degree alcohol impaired defendant’s senses and her ability to accurately perceive and recall the events about which she testified at trial. …

… Stephen’s proposed testimony regarding his observations of defendant, i.e., that she fumbled with her license, slurred her speech, and smelled of alcohol, was not cumulative of other evidence already before the jury … . …

Defendant testified that she did not fumble with her license, her speech was not slurred, she did not recall her eyes being “glassy,” and there was no alcohol on her breath. Thus, the excluded testimony from Stephen would have provided ” evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which [defendant] has endeavored to prove’ ” … and therefore fell within the scope of permissible rebuttal evidence.  Brooks v Blanchard, 2019 NY Slip Op 05847, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

SPOLIATION WARRANTED STRIKING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the destruction of plaintiff’s truck, which was allegedly struck by defendant’s truck, warranted striking the complaint:

… [O]n their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint, the defendants sustained their burden of establishing that the plaintiff was obligated to preserve the truck at the time it was purportedly “seized and disposed” of, that the truck had been seized and disposed of before the defendants had an opportunity to inspect it, and that the truck was relevant to the litigation … . Furthermore, the defendants demonstrated that their ability to prove their defense had been significantly, if not fatally, compromised by the loss of the truck. Under the circumstances presented, the sanction of striking the complaint was appropriate … . Delmur, Inc. v School Constr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 05764, Second Dept 7-24-19\

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS STOPPED IN AN UNUSUAL AND VIOLENT WAY IN THIS COMMON CARRIER INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether the bus on which plaintiff was a passenger stopped in an unusual and violent way, injuring her:

To prevail on a cause of action alleging that a common carrier was negligent in stopping a bus, a plaintiff must prove that the stop was unusual and violent, rather than merely one of the sort of “jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” … . Moreover, a plaintiff may not satisfy that burden of proof merely by characterizing the stop as unusual and violent … . “However, in seeking summary judgment dismissing such a cause of action, common carriers have the burden of establishing, prima facie, that the stop was not unusual and violent” … .

… According to the plaintiff’s testimony, shortly after she paid her fare, the bus “took off” and then came to a quick stop, causing her to fall. According to the testimony of the bus driver, he was operating the bus at about 15 miles per hour when a vehicle cut in front of him, causing him to apply the brakes and stop the bus. Under the circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the stop of the bus was unusual and violent … . Brown v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 05759, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, , , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY, HERE THE ABILITY FOR UNLIMITED AMENDMENT OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED; SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED AS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Supreme Court should not, sua sponte, have granted relief which was not requested by a party. Petitioner allegedly was injured trying to board a subway train. Before filing a notice of claim petitioner commenced a CPLR 3102 (c) proceeding to obtain discovery before starting the action. The court granted the petition and, sua sponte, gave the petitioner permission to amend the notice of claim, which had not yet been filed, within 30 days of filing the note of issue. The Second Department noted that a sua sponte order is not appealable and exercised its discretion to grant leave to appeal (CPLR 5701[a][2]; [c]):

Turning to the merits, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 2214(a), an order to show cause must state the relief demanded and the grounds therefor'” . “However, the court may grant relief that is warranted by the…  facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court strayed from this principle when, in addition to granting, in effect, that branch of the petition which was for an order preserving material related to the accident, it also sua sponte granted a nearly unlimited prospective right to the petitioner to amend a notice of claim that had not yet been served. This sua sponte relief was dramatically different from the pre-action discovery that was the subject of the petition … . Furthermore, the papers before the court did not support the award of such additional relief, since the absence of a notice of claim rendered it impossible to determine whether the future notice of claim or any amendments thereto would be in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e. We also agree with the appellants that they were prejudiced insofar as the court set a permissive timeline for amending the notice of claim that potentially could be, inter alia, beyond the statute of limitations and after the completion of discovery. Matter of Velez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05781, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE BASED UPON THE SALE OF HEROIN WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE VICTIM’S DEATH; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE MANSLAUGHTER COUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, over a dissent, determined the evidence of manslaughter presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient. Defendant allegedly provided very strong heroin to the victim, causing victim’s death:

“In the context of grand jury proceedings, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Thus, “if the [People have] established a prima facie case, the evidence is legally sufficient even though its quality or weight may be so dubious as to preclude indictment or conviction pursuant to other requirements” … . …

… [I]n order to find a defendant guilty of manslaughter in the second degree, the People are required to show that he or she “recklessly cause[d] the death of  another person” (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]). “A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance . . . when he [or she] is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists” … . …

Given defendant’s knowledge of the potency of the drugs that he was distributing and their potential lethality, it is evident that the nature of the risk involved was of such degree “that defendant’s failure to perceive it constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” and that his actions were a sufficiently direct cause of the victim’s death for him to face the judgment of a jury … . People v Gaworecki, 2019 NY Slip Op 05725, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

, , ,

THE CLAIM DID NOT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE LOCATION OF CLAIMANT’S SLIP AND FALL AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant in this slip and fall case did not meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act 11 and her claim was therefore properly dismissed. Although claimant submitted an aerial map in opposition to the motion to dismiss, only the information in the claim need be considered:

Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) provides that “[t]he claim shall state the . . . place where such claim arose.” Although “absolute exactness” is not required, “a claimant must provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable defendant to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability”  … . “[D]efendant is not required to ferret out or assemble information that [Court of Claims Act § ] 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege,” and “[f]ailure to abide by [the statute’s] pleading requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of the claim, even though this may be a harsh result” … . …

Claimant alleged that she fell “on the exterior stairs/landing located proximate to Moffit Hall and Clinton Dining Hall.” The record establishes, however, that there are three staircases proximate to Moffit Hall and Clinton Dining Hall. Claimant’s contention that the location stated in her claim necessarily referred to the sole staircase/landing between the two buildings is without merit because the claim did not allege that the situs of the accident occurred between the two buildings … . In opposition to the motion to dismiss, claimant submitted an aerial map of where she allegedly fell. However, the aerial map does not cure the pleading defect in her claim because the aerial map was not included in her claim, and defendant is not required to go beyond the claim to ascertain the situs of the injury … . Katan v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05746, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

,

ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was jogging when she tripped over a raised edge of a depression in the roadway. The defect was surrounded by orange markings:

The evidence demonstrated that [defendant] was in the process of restoring the excavated area in the location of the plaintiff’s accident and that the alleged defective condition measured approximately four-feet wide, eight-feet long, and at least one-inch deep. …

… A “condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted'”  … . Furthermore, “proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability . . . but is relevant to the issue of the plaintiff’s comparative negligence” … . “Thus, to obtain summary judgment, a defendant must establish that a condition was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous” … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defect was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident … . Finally … , the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to this action … . Karpel v National Grid Generation, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05651, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CLAIMED INJURIES, THEREFORE THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation concerning the alleged malpractice was deemed conclusory and therefore did not raise a question of fact. The informed consent cause of action was dismissed because the medical procedure was not the proximate cause of the claimed injuries:

To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff ” must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury'” … . ” The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury'” … . Here, the defendants established through their expert affirmation that the surgery performed … did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s claimed injuries … . Gilmore v Mihail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05647, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

THE NOTICES OF CLAIM NOTIFIED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS ONLY OF THE DAMAGES RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTHER’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD HER DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint against the municipal defendants could not be amended to assert a derivative cause of action by plaintiff’s decedent’s mother:

In September 2015, the decedent commenced this action against the City, the Port Authority, and another defendant, alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law. The decedent died on August 7, 2016. Subsequently, the decedent’s mother, Marilyn Conn (hereinafter Marilyn), as administrator of the decedent’s estate and individually, moved for leave to substitute herself as the plaintiff in place of the decedent. She also moved for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death on behalf of the decedent’s estate and, in effect, a derivative cause of action to recover damages for loss of services on her own behalf, in her individual capacity. …

… [T]he notices of claim filed against the City and the Port Authority were limited to allegations that, as a result of the accident, the decedent was caused to sustain damages related to his “personal injuries, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and medical expenses.” Marilyn was not identified as a claimant in the caption of the notices of claim, she was not mentioned in the text of the notices of claim, and there were no allegations that she, individually, sustained any damages for which compensation was sought from the City or the Port Authority … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Marilyn’s motion which was, in effect, for leave to amend the complaint to assert a derivative cause of action to recover damages for loss of services on her own behalf, in her individual capacity, against the City and the Port Authority. Since the City and the Port Authority were not given timely notice of Marilyn’s derivative claim, the court should not have allowed it to be asserted against them.  Conn v Tutor Perini Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05643, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAPPENED FOUND INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DISSENT ARGUED THE TESTIMONY RAISED CLASSIC QUESTIONS OF FACT FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted. The majority argued plaintiff’s testimony was incredible and therefore was properly disregarded. The dissent argued plaintiff’s testimony raised classic questions of fact about how the accident happened. The collision occurred when plaintiff was attempting to change lanes. The majority interpreted plaintiff’s testimony to mean that she was straddling two lanes and was not moving when the truck struck her SUV, which, based on photographic evidence, the majority found incredible as a matter of law:

The photographic evidence shows that plaintiff’s SUV struck the rear of defendants’ tractor-trailer as plaintiff was attempting to merge into defendants’ truck’s lane of traffic. Thus, plaintiff violated her “duty not to enter a lane of moving traffic until it was safe to do so” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a] …), “and [her] failure to heed this duty constitutes negligence per se”. * * ^

… [I]n summary judgment analysis, we must discount the plaintiff’s testimony where the plaintiff has “relied solely on [her] own testimony, uncorroborated by any other witnesses or evidence,” and her testimony belied “common sense” … . As these circumstances are presented in this case, plaintiff’s testimony was properly “disregarded as being without evidentiary value” … . Thus, plaintiff’s testimony raised no triable issues of fact. Castro v Hatim, 2019 NY Slip Op 05639, First Dept 7-16-19

 

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