You are here: / Negligence
,

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY TIMELY RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CLAIM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR MISSING THE 90-DAY DEADLINE; HERE THE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE BUT THE MUNICIPALITY DID RECEIVE TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting that the absence of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive, determined petitioner should have been granted leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Petitioner, a plumber, allegedly tripped over a piece of rebar protruding from the ground at a construction site:

Here, while the petitioner concedes that his claim of clerical error does not qualify as a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim, “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the petitioner’s application” … .

While the lack of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive on an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, “whether the municipality acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” … . Here, while there is no proof that the petitioner served the notice of claim upon NYCHA on January 27, 2020, NYCHA admits to receiving the first petition on or about January 31, 2020, less than three weeks after the expiration of the 90-day notice period. NYCHA additionally admits that it was able to schedule and conduct a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing with the petitioner on April 20, 2020. Matter of Herry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 01928, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: In determining a request for leave to file a late notice of claim, whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for failing to file the notice of claim within 90 days is less important than whether the municipality timely received actual notice of the claim. Here the excuse was not valid but the municipality received timely notice. The request for leave to file a late notice should have been granted.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WAS NEGLIGENT IN PLACING HIM IN A ROOM WITH A PERSON WITH COVID; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THAT PERSON’S MEDICAL RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHEN THE HOSPITAL BECAME AWARE OF THE COVID DIAGNOSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to discovery of another’s medical records. Plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in placing plaintiff in a room with a person with COVID. The sought medical records may reveal when the hospital became aware of the COVID diagnosis:

Although “discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse” … . CPLR 3101 (a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” “What is material and necessary is left to the sound discretion of the lower courts and includes any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … .

Pursuant to CPLR 4504 (a), “a person authorized to practice medicine . . . shall not be allowed to disclose any information which [they] acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable [them] to act in that capacity.” The physician-patient privilege may be overcome, however, where the plaintiff establishes that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to their claim … . Here, plaintiffs established that the nonparty patient’s hospital records would show when defendant, its agents, servants and employees became aware that the patient had tested positive for COVID-19 and that such information is material and necessary to establish whether defendant had notice that it was placing plaintiff in the same room as a person who had COVID-19 … . Martin v Kaleida Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01756, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery of another’s medical records because the records were “material and necessary to the prosecution of the action.”

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO RETURN PLAINTIFF’S TESLA TO ITS PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITION AND THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH COMPARABLE TRANSPORTATION WHILE THE TESLA WAS BEING REPAIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated causes of action for damages relating to the alleged failure to restore plaintiff’s Tesla to its pre-accident condition and damages relating to the alleged failure to provide plaintiff with comparable transporting while the Tesla was repaired:

We agree with plaintiff … that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of his motion, defendant offered no proof establishing as a matter of law that the repairs to plaintiff’s vehicle restored the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. Defendant relied largely on an affirmation from his attorney, who has no personal knowledge of the facts, along with plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Although defendant contends that plaintiff admitted during his deposition that the repairs to his vehicle were done to his satisfaction, plaintiff made clear during his testimony that, due to the gaps in the paneling, the vehicle was not in the same condition as before the accident. Defendant offered no evidence to the contrary, and it is well established that a party moving for summary judgment “must affirmatively establish the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … .

… [W]ith respect to the loss of use cause of action, defendant merely asserted that plaintiff was not entitled to the use of a vehicle comparable to his Tesla while the Tesla was being repaired. According to defendant, any operable vehicle will suffice regardless of its make, model, size, or safety features. We agree with plaintiff … that he is entitled to damages to the extent that he was not provided with the use of a vehicle generally comparable to his Tesla Model 3 … . Hazlett v Niezgoda, 2025 NY Slip Op 01730, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: A plaintiff can seek damages for the failure to return a vehicle to its pre-accident condition and the failure to provide plaintiff with comparable transportation during the repair-period.

 

,

A MEDICAL CORPORATION CAN BE LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint against defendant medical corporations stated a cause of action for negligent failure to safeguard the confidentiality of medical records:

Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that, attendant to the health care services they received from defendant Rochester General Hospital (RGH), confidential medical records were generated and that those confidential medical records were stored on computer systems and networks maintained by RGH and defendants Rochester Regional Health ACO, Inc. (RRH) and Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association, Inc. (GRIPA). Plaintiffs further allege that defendant Christine M. Smith, R.N., a nurse at RGH, impermissibly accessed those records due to the failure of RGH, RRH and GRIPA “to exercise reasonable care in obtaining, retaining, securing, safeguarding, and protecting this confidential medical information from unlawful access.”

“A medical corporation may . . . be liable in tort for failing to establish adequate policies and procedures to safeguard the confidentiality of patient information or to train their employees to properly discharge their duties under those policies and procedures. These potential claims provide the requisite incentive for medical providers to put in place appropriate safeguards to ensure protection of a patient’s confidential information” … . Here, plaintiffs alleged that defendants generated and maintained the medical records that Smith impermissibly accessed and that they breached their duty to properly safeguard or monitor access to those records. Accepting as true the allegations in the complaint and the averments in the affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, we conclude that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a negligence claim. * * * Hurley v Rochester Regional Health Aco, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01729, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: A medical corporation can be liable for failure to safeguard the confidentiality of medical records.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE OWNER, HERE A CAR DEALERSHIP, IS USUALLY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY A DRIVER OPERATING THE VEHICLE WITH THE OWNER’S PERMISSION, HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER, WHO WAS TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE, EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE PERMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment against the owner of the vehicle in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although summary judgment against the driver, Patel, was properly granted, there was a question of fact whether the driver had exceeded the scope of the permission granted by the owner, Paragon, a car dealership. There was evidence the sales rep told Patel he could drive around the block and return in five or ten minutes. Patel had taken the car on the expressway and called the dealership 35 minutes after leaving to say he had accident:

“Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) provides that, with the exception of bona fide commercial lessors of motor vehicles, which are exempt from vicarious liability under federal law, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the negligence of one who operates the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent” … . “The strong presumption of permissive use afforded by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, can only be rebutted by substantial evidence sufficient to show that the driver of the vehicle was not operating the vehicle with the owner’s consent” … . “An owner may place limitations on a driver’s permission to use a vehicle, such as granting consent to drive only to a particular area or for a specific purpose, and use outside the scope of permission negates the owner’s liability under the statute” … . “Thus, an owner may avoid liability under the statute if the driver exceeded the time, place[,] and purpose of the use permitted by the owner” … . Madrigal v Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01620, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: The owner of a vehicle may impose limits on the permissive use of the vehicle by another. If the driver exceeds the scope of the permission to use the vehicle, the owner may not be vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388.

 

, , , ,

THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE ALLEGED FRAUD WHICH INDUCED HIM TO SIGN RELEASES; THEREFORE THIS FRUAD-BASED ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school in this Child Victims Act case (1) did not demonstrate the fraud-based causes of action to set aside or rescind the releases signed by the plaintiff were time-barred and (2) was not entitled to dismissal of the fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment causes of action. Plaintiff alleged he would not have signed the releases had he known the guidance counsellor who allegedly sexually abused him would be allowed to continue in his employment, and he would not have signed the releases had he known there were other instances of sexual misconduct by the guidance counsellor of which the school was aware:  With respect to the statute of limitations for a fraud-based action, the court explained:

“A fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it, whichever is later” (… see CPLR 203[g]; 213[8]). “The inquiry as to whether a plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud turns on whether the plaintiff was possessed of knowledge of facts from which the fraud could be reasonably inferred” … . “Generally, knowledge of the fraudulent act is required and mere suspicion will not constitute a sufficient substitute. Where it does not conclusively appear that a plaintiff had knowledge of facts from which the fraud could reasonably be inferred, a [fraud-based cause of action] should not be dismissed on motion and the question should be left to the trier of facts” … . “Ordinarily, an inquiry into when a plaintiff should have discovered an alleged fraud presents a mixed question of law and fact” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish that the causes of action to set aside or rescind the releases on the ground of fraud were time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) … . “[T]here was no indication in the [amended complaint] or in the papers submitted by the defendant[ ] on [its] motion as to when the plaintiff became aware” of the alleged fraudulent conduct … . In any event, the plaintiff, in affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, indicated that he learned of certain facts underlying the fraud-based causes of action in early 2021 … . The defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff, by exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered those facts at some point prior to the two-year period immediately preceding the commencement of this action … . Gormley v Marist Bros. of the Schs., Province of the United States of Am., 2025 NY Slip Op 01612, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here defendant did not demonstrate when plaintiff could or should have become aware of the defendant’s alleged fraud. Therefore the motion to dismiss the fraud-based action as time-barred should not have been granted.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of what must be alleged to state causes of action for fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment in the context of setting aside or rescinding a release.

 

, ,

THE INFORMATION IN THE CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CLAIM WAS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE STATE TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BETWEEN 1986 AND 1990; CLAIM DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan,, determined the Child Victims Act claim did not provide sufficient information to allow the State to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse between 1986 and 1990:

… [W]e conclude that Wright’s [claimant’s] claim lacks the specificity section [Court of Claims Act] 11 (b) requires. Because the allegations are too spare to enable the State promptly to investigate and ascertain the existence and extent of its liability, the claim suffers a jurisdictional defect and therefore must be dismissed.

The claim lacks critical information about the abusers. It alleges that the perpetrators included teachers, coaches, counselors, and perhaps other employees of the State, but it does not explain whether those employees were Wright’s teachers, coaches, and counselors, or why, as a child, he was in their company multiple times between 1986 and 1990. The claim also alleges that members of the public were responsible for some of the abuse he suffered, but it does not explain why Wright came into contact with those persons as a child, the context in which adult supervision of any particular activity allegedly should have been provided, or the extent to which the State bore responsibility for Wright’s contact with the abusers. Nor does the claim adequately allege what repeatedly brought Wright to The Egg [a State performing arts center] over a four-year period in the late 1980s, or why, once on the premises, he frequently engaged with both members of the public and State employees.

In the absence of such information, the State cannot promptly investigate the claim and determine its liability under Wright’s theories of negligence. … The State is left to “guess” whether at any point during the four-year period alleged in the claim it owed some duty to Wright and, if so, whether it breached that obligation … . But it “is not the State’s burden . . . to assemble information” not included in a claim so that it may promptly investigate and assess its liability … . Section 11 (b) places that burden on the claimant. Wright v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01564, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: If the claim in a Child Victims Act suit against the State does not provide enough information to allow the State to investigate, it will be deemed to lack the specificity required by Court of Claims Act section 11 (b) and will be dismissed.​

 

,

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FUNCTIONED AS A DE FACTO RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY BY PROVIDING HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES; THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, AVAILABLE ONLY FOR SUITS AGAINST RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the allegations in the complaint did not sufficiently allege that defendant assisted living facility operated as a de facto residential health care facility. Therefore the Public Health Law causes of action, which are available only for suits against residential health care facilities, should have been dismissed. The concurring justices argued that the case which allowed assisted living facilities to be considered de facto residential health care facilities if they provide health-related services should be overruled:

… Supreme Court erred in denying their motion with respect to the second and third causes of action. We have held that an assisted living facility licensed pursuant to Public Health Law article 46-B … could operate as a de facto residential health care facility subject to liability under Public Health Law article 28 if it provides health-related services (see Cunningham v Mary Agnes Manor Mgt., L.L.C., 188 AD3d 1560, 1562 [4th Dept …]. We conclude that, unlike the complaint in Cunningham, the complaint here failed to “sufficiently allege[ ] facts to overcome defendants’ argument that the facility is an assisted living facility and not subject to . . . sections [2801-d and 2803-c] of the Public Health Law” … .

From the concurrence:

… [W]e would overrule our prior decision in Cunningham to the extent that it authorizes a cause of action under article 28 of the Public Health Law against an assisted living facility indisputably licensed pursuant to article 46-B of the Public Health Law … . Kingston v Tennyson Ct., 2025 NY Slip Op 01522, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Private causes of action pursuant to the Public Health Law are available only for suits against residential health care facilities, and not suits against assisted living facilities. In the Fourth Department, however, the Public Health Law causes of action can be viable against an assistant living facility if the facility offers health-related services. The two concurring justices in the instant decision would overrule that “assisted living facility” caveat. which conflicts with rulings in other appellate division departments.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT STATE PAROLE OFFICER WAS DRIVING A STATE-OWNED VEHICLE AND ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY BROUGHT SUIT IN SUPREME COURT AS OPPOSED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Correction Law did not require that plaintiff bring this traffic accident case involving a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) parole officer in the Court of Claims. Although the defendant officer was driving a State-owned vehicle and was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident, the lawsuit was properly brought in Supreme Court:

“Not every suit against an officer of the State, however, is a suit against the State” … . “A suit against a State officer will be held to be one which is really asserted against the State when it arises from actions or determinations of the officer made in his or her official role and involves rights asserted, not against the officer individually, but solely against the State” … . If, however, “the suit against the State agent or officer is in tort for damages arising from the breach of a duty owed individually by such agent or officer directly to the injured party, the State is not the real party in interest—even though it could be held secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior” … .

Correction Law § 24 (2) provides that claims for damages “arising out of any act done or the failure to perform any act within the scope of the employment and in the discharge of the duties” of any State employee shall be brought in the Court of Claims as claims against the State. Thus, Correction Law § 24 “places actions for money damages against [DOCCS] employees within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims only where the conduct alleged is within the scope of the officer’s employment and in the discharge of his or her official duties” … .

Here, the complaint asserts a single cause of action based on allegations that defendant operated the vehicle in a negligent manner, i.e., that defendant’s alleged negligence arises from her violation of a duty she owed plaintiff as a fellow driver, and not as a DOCCS employee. Thus, plaintiff’s action is “against . . . defendant individually for an alleged breach of a duty of care owed by the defendant directly to [plaintiff], and not one against State officers as representatives of the State in their official capacity which had to be brought in the Court of Claims pursuant to Correction Law § 24” … . Maiorana v Green, 2025 NY Slip Op 01518, Fourth Dept 12-14-25

Practice Point: Although the defendant parole officer was acting within the scope of her employment when she was driving the state-owned vehicle, the traffic accident allegedly breached a duty of care owed directly to the plaintiff by the defendant as a fellow driver, not as a state employee.

 

, , , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE PURPORTED “OFF THE RECORD” STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WERE NEVER FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK; A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WITH THE JUDGE’S CLERK DOES NOT MEET THE “OPEN COURT” REQUIREMENT FOR A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the purported stipulation of settlement of this legal malpractice action did not meet the requisite criteria and could not be enforced:

It is well settled that ” ‘[a]n oral stipulation of settlement that is made in open court and stenographically recorded is enforceable as a contract and is governed by general contract principles for its interpretation and effect’ ” (… see generally CPLR 2104). Here, however, in support of her cross-motion, plaintiff failed to attach any transcripts or other evidence substantiating the purported settlement agreement. Indeed, we conclude that “[t]he record provides no basis for concluding that an enforceable stipulation was entered into between the parties” inasmuch as “[p]ertinent discussions took place off the record” … . Plaintiff also failed to establish that the terms of the settlement agreement were ever filed with the county clerk (see CPLR 2104 …).

Even if plaintiff had submitted written evidence of the parties’ purported stipulation of settlement, we conclude that said stipulation was not entered in “open court” inasmuch as there is no dispute that the alleged settlement was reached during a pretrial conference with the court’s law clerk … . Indeed, the “open court requirement . . . is not satisfied in locations without a Justice presiding . . . , and it is not satisfied during less formal stages of litigation, such as a pretrial conference” … . Guzman-Martinez v Rosado, 2025 NY Slip Op 01483, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for an enforceable stipulation of settlement, i.e., a transcript or other evidence of the terms of any oral agreement, the filing of the terms of the agreement with the county clerk, and the entering of the agreement in open court with a judge presiding.

 

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