You are here: / Negligence
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ISSUE THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE DEFENDANT IN ITS REPLY PAPERS AND THE JUDGE IS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS IS NOT DISPOSITIVE ON THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff tripped over a wheelchair scale in a hallway of defendant’s nursing home. The Fourth Department noted that the issue was preserved for appeal despite the absence from the record of the memorandum which raised the issue. The issue was addressed in defendant’s reply papers and noted in the court’s written decision. The Fourth Department held that the scale was not an open and obvious hazard as a matter of law and the fact that the scale was alleged to have been in compliance with the National Fire Prevention Associations’s Life Safety Code would not be dispositive on the issue of negligence:

… [P]laintiff’s contention that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment is properly before us inasmuch as it involves a “question of law appearing on the face of the record . . . [that] could not have been avoided by the opposing party if brought to that party’s attention in a timely manner” … . …

… [T]he facts here simply do not warrant concluding as a matter of law that the [wheelchair scale] was so obvious that it would necessarily be noticed by any careful observer, so as to make any warning superfluous’ ” and to support a conclusion that it was not a hazard as a matter of law … . …

Defendant also did not meet its initial burden on the motion by submitting the deposition testimony of one of its employees, who opined that the wheelchair scale was in compliance with the National Fire Prevention Association’s Life Safety Code, 2000 Edition (Code). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s employee was qualified to render an opinion concerning defendant’s compliance with the Code … , we conclude that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because it is well settled that “compliance with regulations or a building code is not dispositive on the issue of negligence” … . Rivera v Rochester Gen. Health Sys., 2019 NY Slip Op 04835, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

,

PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY DENIED, THE DOCTOR PRESCRIBED OPIOIDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A DRUG ADDICT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant pain-management doctor’s (Kiri’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case was properly denied. Kiri allegedly continued to prescribe high-dosage opioids to plaintiff’s decedent knowing that she was an addict. Plaintiff’s decedent died of a drug overdose. Although plaintiff’s decedent used illicit drugs as well, there was a question of fact about the proximate cause of death and whether the death was a foreseeable consequence of prescribing opioids:

Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that Dr. Kiri’s prescription of high-dose opioid pain killers for more than a year, despite the fact that her medical records showed drug use and drug seeking behavior, escalated, enhanced, or encouraged that behavior. An accidental overdose is not an unforeseeable result of prescribing, or over-prescribing, opioid painkillers to a patient who displays signs of addiction … . More specifically, here, decedent’s procurement and use of illicit drugs were not unforeseeable in light of the indicia of addiction or misuse noted in her medical records. Because decedent’s use of illicit drugs was not unforeseeable, her drug use was not an intervening cause and did not amount to a separate act of negligence that independently caused her death. Halloran v Kiri, 2019 NY Slip Op 04769, First Dept 6-13-19

 

,

THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ASSERTING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT MENTION AN ALLEGEDLY MISSING STOP SIGN AS A BASIS FOR LIABILITY, THE MISSING STOP SIGN WAS MENTIONED IN THE POLICE REPORT WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff student was properly allowed file a late notice of claim, which added a cause of action. The infant plaintiff was injured when his school bus was involved in a traffic accident. The initial notice of claim alleged negligence on the of the city and the Department of Education (DOE) in connection with the ownership of the school bus. The late notice of claim alleged a cause of action against the city and the NYC Department of Transportation based upon an alleged missing stop sign. A police report was attached to the original notice of claim and the missing stop sign was mentioned in the report:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). Although the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim containing the allegation regarding the missing stop sign, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not determinative, as the City defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose and were not substantially prejudiced by the late notice … . M.L. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04686, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , , , ,

SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee’s personal injury complaint against the NYC Department of Education (DOE), stemming from an elevator accident, should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff-employee first applied to the DOE for line of duty injury paid medical leave pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and was denied. Plaintiff then commenced the personal injury action. The DOE argued that plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the CBA and, in the alternative, the denial of the line of duty pay should be given res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Supreme Court decided plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. The Second Department held that her injury and the resulting negligence action were not covered by the CBA:

An employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies … or face dismissal of the action …. Here, however, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendants for pain and suffering based upon a negligence theory of liability which is outside the scope of, and is not governed by, the CBA’s “line of duty injury” paid leave grievance provisions… . There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies when the cause of action by the plaintiff is not governed by the CBA … .

The defendants’ contention that dismissal is also warranted on the basis of collateral estoppel and res judicata is without merit … . Collateral estoppel is inapplicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue that the plaintiff seeks to pursue here was necessarily decided by the DOE when it denied the plaintiff’s “line of duty injury” paid leave application … . Likewise, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, also is inapplicable to the plaintiff’s complaint because the relief she seeks could not have been awarded within the context of the prior administrative proceeding … . Shortt v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

,

THE NEW JERSEY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVED NEW YORK RESIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS), A TRUCK LEASED BY DEFENDANT NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCK DRIVER FROM PENNSYLVANIA; NO GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION OR THE DRIVER; POSSIBLE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION, BUT NOT THE DRIVER, BASED UPON BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied all but one of the defendants’ motions to dismiss premised on lack of personal jurisdiction, pending further discovery. The traffic accident happened in New Jersey. The plaintiffs’ van was struck from behind by a freight truck leased by Finkle (a New Jersey corporation) from Ryder Truck Rental and driven by defendant Larios, a resident of Pennsylvania. All the plaintiffs were residents of New York. The Second Department found that there was no general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, and no long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a])(3) (tortious act outside the state causing injury within the state). However there may jurisdiction against Finkle pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (conducting business within the state):

… [Plaintiffs] have not alleged facts in opposition which would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under New York’s general jurisdiction statute, CPLR 301, over Larios, who was not domiciled in New York, or over Finkle, which was not incorporated in New York and did not have its principal place of business in New York … . …

Under CPLR 302(a)(3), “[t]he situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff” … . Here, since the accident which caused the injuries occurred in New Jersey, CPLR 302(a)(3) does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over these defendants in New York … .

… .Finkle asserted that it is a New Jersey corporation with its business address in New Jersey, and Larios stated that, at the time of the accident, he was transporting a load for the United States Postal Service within the State of New Jersey. However, Finkle admitted that it had terminals at four New York locations at which it parked its vehicles. Based upon these facts, and given Finkle’s failure to submit trip logs, manifests, or other documentary evidence to support its assertion that the load Larios was transporting was being shipped within the State of New Jersey and had no relationship to Finkle’s New York business, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny as premature that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Finkle, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery. Qudsi v Larios, 2019 NY Slip Op 04742, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL WERE NOT PRODUCTS TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO WARN OF THE HAZARDS OF BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM THE OVENS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant (Wilputte), which sold coke ovens for steel production, did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, the ovens were not “products” triggering the duty to warn. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted (by the Appellate Division). Plaintiff’s decedent worked on top of the coke ovens and alleged breathing the toxic substances caused lung cancer. Plaintiffs alleged defendant had a duty to warn plaintiff’s decedent to use a respirator when working on the ovens. The Appellate Division had determined the coke ovens, housed in so-called “batteries,” were akin to buildings and construction of the buildings was a service, not a product:

… [D]efendant has not met its burden in showing that the coke ovens at issue are not products as a matter of law. Regardless of the alterations Bethlehem [the steel manufacturer] may have made to the scale and specifications of the battery at large, the ovens themselves served one function: the production of coke. This process was standard across all variations of coke ovens that Wilputte sold, ultimately placing the hazardous thing at issue squarely within the category of products to which liability has attached in the failure-to-warn context. …

… Wilputte was responsible for placing the ovens into the stream of commerce and that it derived financial benefit from its role in the production process. Indeed, by the time decedent began working for Bethlehem, Wilputte had sold hundreds of coke ovens to plants … . Wilputte also marketed its ovens with informational brochures showing the completed ovens and their functionality, indicating that Wilputte, not Bethlehem, was the commercial source of the product. … Although the ovens were largely assembled and completed on-site, that merely speaks to the logistical realties of the market of which Wilputte had a considerable share. …

… [T]he record supports Supreme Court’s conclusion that Wilputte was in the best position to assess the safety of the coke ovens because of its superior knowledge regarding the ovens’ intended functionality … . “A major determinant of the existence of a duty to warn” is an assessment of “whether the manufacturer is in a superior position to know of and warn against those hazards” inherent to its product … . Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 04640, CtApp 6-11-19

 

,

THE POND INTO WHICH THE 96-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT APPARENTLY SLID WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THE FACT THAT THE BANK OF THE POND IS SLIPPERY IS INCIDENTAL TO ITS NATURE AND LOCATION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUPPORT THE ASSERTION THAT THE POND WAS DEFECTIVE AND UNSAFE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant property owners’ motion for summary judgment in this wrongful death case was properly granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was 96 years old and resided in defendants’ senior citizen facility. Plaintiff’s decedent was found  dead in a pond on the property. The medical examiner concluded plaintiff’s decedent may has slipped on the sloping bank of the pond and slid into the water where he died of drowning:

… [A] landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … .

Here, defendants met their initial burden on the motion by establishing that the pond, including its sloping bank, was an open and obvious condition inherent or incidental to the nature of the property and that it was known to decedent prior to the accident …. “A slippery condition on a [pond’s bank] is necessarily incidental to its nature and location near a body of water” … . …

… [T]he engineering expert’s affidavit that plaintiff submitted fails to indicate that it was based on any studies, regulations, codes, or statutes, “nor is the expert’s conclusion that the [retention pond] was defective and unsafe . . . supported by foundational facts, such as a deviation from industry standards or statistics showing the frequency of injuries caused by” the lack of safety measures proposed by the expert … . Preston v Castle Pointe, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04617, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, , ,

THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND THEREFORE HIS CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined “reckless disregard” standard for the operation of a police car in an emergency situation applied to the facts, and further found that the officer’s conduct did not rise to the level of “reckless disregard:”

We agree with defendants that the court erred in determining that the defendant officer’s conduct was not measured by the “reckless disregard” standard of care under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) … . That standard of care “applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b)” …  and, if applicable, the driver is “shielded from liability unless [he or she] is shown to have acted with reckless disregard’ of the safety of others” … . Here, there is no dispute that the defendant officer was operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” and was “involved in an emergency operation” at the time of the accident (§ 1104 [a]). Furthermore, defendants’ submissions in support of their motion established as a matter of law that the defendant officer was performing exempted conduct when he “proceed[ed] past a steady red signal . . . , but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation” … . …

Here, the defendant officer’s uncontroverted testimony established that he was responding to a disturbance call that was “[p]riority 1,” i.e., the highest priority level, and that he took several precautions before proceeding into the intersection against the red light. Specifically, he slowed his vehicle to an almost complete stop, looked to his right and left, and then slowly proceeded into the intersection at a speed of about five miles per hour. When plaintiffs’ vehicle came into the defendant officer’s peripheral vision, he “slammed” his brake and attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiffs’ vehicle. Where, as here, a defendant officer takes precautionary measures before engaging in exempted conduct under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b), the police officer does not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Levere v City of Syracuse, 2019 NY Slip Op 04613, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGED DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE AND PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS, THE DOCTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the medical malpractice action against defendant Dr. Dietz and his employer should have been granted because plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about whether the alleged departure from the standard of care had a causal relationship with the plaintiff’s injury. The majority concluded the expert’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact with respect a second defendant, Dr. Pedersen, but the dissent argued the affidavit with respect to Dr. Pedersen was conclusory and did not demonstrate a causal relationship:

… [P]laintiff’s expert did not opine that Dr. Dietz caused the iliac vein injury and instead opined that Dr. Dietz deviated from the standard of care by insufficiently examining or testing the iliac vein following Dr. Pedersen’s repair. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert did not indicate the possible results of any such examination or testing, whether those results should have prompted a different course of treatment, or how Dr. Dietz’s alleged departure from the standard of care otherwise caused plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to causation regarding Dr. Dietz … . Dickinson v Bassett Healthcare, 2019 NY Slip Op 04610, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS INJURED BY AN OUTWARD-SWINGING BATHROOM DOOR WHICH OPENED INTO THE HALLWAY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE VERDICT PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the motion to set aside the negligence verdict against the school district was properly denied. Plaintiff student was injured by a bathroom door which opened outward into the hallway on the side of the hallway the students were instructed to use:

[The] evidence, which we have evaluated in light of the unchallenged jury instructions given by the court … , included testimony from the school’s principal that it would have been safer for students walking in the hallway to have the door open inward and that the likelihood of the door opening into someone’s path was increased because the students were instructed to walk on the right side of the hallway next to the door. In addition, the director of facilities for defendant Williamsville Central School District at the time of the incident testified that it was very possible that the outward-swinging door could strike someone walking down the hallway, that he did not know of any reason why the door opened outward, and that the door could have been modified by his staff in a short time at minimal expense. The jury was also able to consider trial exhibits including oversized photographs and architectural schemata to help it determine whether, in light of all the circumstances … , the bathroom door was, as charged by the court, “reasonably safe.” Thus, even apart from the testimony of the expert, there is legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude, based on common sense and the ordinary experience and knowledge possessed by laypersons … , that the outward-opening door was not reasonably safe. Douglas F. v Williamsville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 04536, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

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