You are here: / Negligence
,

LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that defendant Coinmach, which leased the laundry room, was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case. Plaintiff alleged the soap tray on the washing machine she was using came all the way out of the machine when she pulled it open, causing her to fall backward from an elevated step in front of the machine. The Second Department determined Coinmach, the lessee of the laundry room, could be held liable because it was responsible for maintaining the laundry room. The court further held that Coinmach did not eliminate questions of fact concerning its constructive notice of the defect which caused the tray to pull out of the machine, because there was no evidence when the machine was last inspected:

Coinmach was the lessee of the laundry room with “the sole and exclusive occupancy, possession and control” for a term of seven years. In return, Coinmach agreed to make monthly rent payments. A tenant has a common-law duty to keep the premises it occupies in a reasonably safe condition, even when the landlord has explicitly agreed in the lease to maintain the premises … . …

Coinmach failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not have constructive notice that the soap tray was broken. Coinmach’s area vice president testified at his deposition that Coinmach did not perform any routine maintenance on the machines, which were serviced whenever Coinmach received a service call requesting repairs. The area vice president testified that at each such service call, the technician would perform a “touch and feel test” on each machine, which would include opening the soap tray to make sure it was secure. However, there is no evidence in the record as to the date of the last service call, and therefore no evidence as to when Coinmach last inspected the subject soap tray before the injured plaintiff’s accident … . Gatto v Coinmach Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT-SELLERS NOT LIABLE FOR MOLD AND MICE IN HOUSE SOLD TO PLAINTIFFS, UNDER THE MERGER DOCTRINE NO PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT SURVIVED THE DELIVERY OF THE DEED, THE DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR APPLIED, NO DUTY OF CARE OWED TO THE PLAINTIFFS OVER AND ABOVE THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE PRIVITY ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION WAS ABSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant-sellers were not liable under breach of contract or negligence theories for the presence of mold and mice in a house sold to plaintiffs:

The contract of sale contained language providing that, unless expressly stated, no covenant, warranty, or representation in the contract survived closing. A rider to the contract stated that the defendants were not aware of any mold or vermin infestation in the house. Prior to the closing, the plaintiffs conducted a home inspection which revealed, among other things, the presence of water staining and evidence of water infiltration on the interior of the house. The home inspection report stated that a mold evaluation was beyond the scope of the inspection and recommended that if the plaintiffs were concerned about potential mold issues, they should call a professional mold abatement company to perform an inspection. The report also stated that the need for some periodic general pest control should be anticipated. The plaintiffs did not undertake a mold inspection. * * *

… [O]nce title to the property closed and the deed was delivered, “any claims the plaintiff[s] might have had arising from the contract of sale were extinguished by the doctrine of merger” since there was no “clear intent evidenced by the parties that [the relevant] provision of the contract of sale [would] survive the delivery of the deed”. … Furthermore, “New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment” … . …

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 claim for negligent misrepresentation requires the plaintiff[s] to demonstrate (1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant[s] to impart correct information to the plaintiff[s]; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information” … . Here, the defendants demonstrated that there was no special or privity-like relationship between themselves and the plaintiffs in this arm’s length transaction … . Rosner v Bankers Std. Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04015, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the icy condition in this slip and fall case. Although the district demonstrated that it removed snow and slush from the area as late as January 6, it did not demonstrate that it inspected or cleaned the area between January 6 and January 9 when plaintiff fell:

Here, the School District failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. The evidence submitted by the School District demonstrated that snow fell on January 2 and 3, 2014. On January 2, 3, and 4, 2014, the School District removed snow and ice from all of its property, including the subject elementary school. On January 6, 2014, between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., the School District removed slush from all of its property. However, no evidence was submitted as to what the accident site looked like after the School District performed work on the premises on January 6, 2014, and what, if any, cleaning procedures or inspection procedures were performed from 7:00 a.m. on January 6, 2014, until the time of the plaintiff’s accident on January 9, 2014. Accordingly, the School District failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall … . Muzio v Levittown Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 03974, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO RAISE A FEIGNED FACTUAL ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE POLICE REPORT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant driver (Karen) made a statement included in the police report indicating she did not see plaintiffs’ motorcycle before the accident. In response to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment defendant driver (Karen) averred that she came to a stop at the stop sign, pulled out into the intersection and then saw the motorcycle moving “extremely fast.” The Second Department held that defendant had raised a feigned factual issue. The court also noted that, although the motion for summary judgment was made before discovery was complete, defendants did not show that additional discovery would lead to relevant evidence:

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted, among other things, affidavits from the injured plaintiff and a witness, Shahiem Smith, who observed the collision. According to those affidavits, Karen drove … into the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to the injured plaintiff’s motorcycle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a) and struck the motorcycle as it was lawfully proceeding through the intersection … . “A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law” … . Moreover, the plaintiffs also submitted a copy of a police accident report which contained Karen’s statement that she did not see the injured plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . Kerolle v Nicholson, 2019 NY Slip Op 03959, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

,

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING PETITIONER’S INJURIES, THE FACTS SUPPORTING THE CITY’S NEGLIGENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION WITH A MODICUM OF EFFORT, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE RELATING TO THE DELAY, PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY WAS NOT FATAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner’s motion to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner, a medical technician, alleged she was struck by an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction (DOC) while the inmate was being treated at Bellevue Hospital. The petitioner reported and discussed the incident with a DOC captain (Obigumeda) on the day it happened and sought to file the notice of claim seven months late:

Supreme Court presumably agreed with respondent’s argument that it lacked notice because petitioner never specified that she had told Obigumeda the manner in which DOC was negligent (namely, by failing to ensure that a correction officer was present when she spoke with the inmate). We disagree.

To the extent that petitioner did not establish actual notice because she did not specify that her description of the assault included a recitation of who was in the room, “municipal authorities have an obligation to obtain the missing information if that can be done with a modicum of effort” … . Here, negligence is the only theory of liability that could be implied by petitioner’s conversations with Obigumeda and, in any event, he could have determined who was in the room during the course of his investigation with “a modicum of effort.” To hold otherwise would turn the statute into a sword, contrary to its remedial purpose … . …

… [R]espondent never provided Supreme Court with any evidence to substantiate that it was prejudiced by the mere passage of time. Instead, respondent made “[g]eneric arguments and inferences” which cannot establish substantial prejudice “in the absence of facts in the record to support such a finding” … .

While petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for service of her late notice of claim, the lack of excuse is not fatal here … . Matter of Rodriguez v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03921, First Dept 5-21-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS WATCHING FOOTBALL PRACTICE FROM THE SIDELINES WHEN A BLOCKING SLED, PUSHED BY SEVERAL PLAYERS, VEERED OFF TO THE SIDE AND RAN OVER PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIES TO SPECTATORS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this negligent supervision action, determined plaintiff-student assumed the risk of injury from a blocking sled during football practice. Plaintiff was not feeling well and was on the sidelines watching practice. He was not paying attention when a blocking sled, pushed by several players, veered toward him and ran over his foot. The court noted that the assumption of risk doctrine applies to bystanders and spectators:

The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applies not only to participants in a qualified activity, but also to bystanders or spectators who have placed themselves in close proximity to it, “particularly where the record shows that the plaintiff had viable alternatives to [his or] her own location” … . “[T]he spectator at a sporting event, no less than the participant, accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary'”… .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff fully comprehended the risks inherent in the sport of football, specifically, that a blocking sled could veer to the left or the right while it was being used in a drill … . M.F. v Jericho Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 03781, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT STRIKE PLAINTIFF AND WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF FROM AN ASSAULT BY OTHERS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BAR-FIGHT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault bar-fight case should have been granted. Defendant did not strike the plaintiff and was not under a duty to protect plaintiff from the conduct of others:

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained on January 7, 2013, at premises owned by the defendant Bulldog Grille, when he allegedly was physically assaulted by the defendants John Heinbuch, John Doe #1, and/or John Doe #2, who were patrons of the Bulldog Grille. …

“Generally, there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others'”  … . Here, Heinbuch established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he did not strike the plaintiff and that he had no duty to control the conduct of the persons who assaulted the plaintiff … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Heinbuch created the situation which led to the assault, or acted tortiously pursuant to a tacit agreement to assault or batter the plaintiff … . Lanfranchi v Grille, 2019 NY Slip Op 03780, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION BASED UPON REMARKS MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING SUMMATION, REMARKS TO WHICH NO OBJECTION HAD BEEN MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in this personal injury case should not have been granted. The jury found that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of the no-fault law (Insurance Law § 5102(d)), and awarded plaintiff $50,000 for lost wages, reduced by $25,000 for failure to wear a seatbelt. The trial judge granted the motion in the interest of justice primarily based upon comments made by defense counsel during summation, comments to which no objection was made:

… [T]he Supreme Court identified eight specific statements made by defense counsel in his closing that the court characterized as improper, in addition to the remarks quoted above. However, none of these statements were objected to. We recognize that common courtesy requires that an attorney allow opposing counsel the opportunity to argue his or her case to the jury without undue or repetitive interruptions. Nevertheless, where counsel, in summing up, exceeds the bounds of legal propriety, it is the duty of the opposing counsel to make a specific objection and for the court to rule on the objection, to direct the jury to disregard any improper remarks, and to admonish counsel from repetition of improper remarks … . Where objection is not, or cannot appropriately be, interposed during summation, counsel should, upon the conclusion of the summation, make appropriate objections, seek curative instructions, or request a mistrial … . Where no objection is interposed, a new trial may be directed only where the remarks are so prejudicial as to have caused a gross injustice, and where the comments are so pervasive, prejudicial, or inflammatory as to deprive a party of a fair trial … . This standard was not met in this case. We stress that the plaintiff’s counsel made no complaint regarding the allegedly prejudicial nature of the defendant’s closing statement until after an adverse verdict was rendered. The verdict that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury was supported by the evidence, and the jury had ample reason to reject the plaintiff’s claims and accept the arguments of the defendants.

Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from, deny the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the issue of damages, and reinstate the jury verdict. Kleiber v Fichtel, 2019 NY Slip Op 03778, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ORAL CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW ENTIRELY REPLACED THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A RECURRENT ICY CONDITION, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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. The plaintiff leased the ground floor apartment and defendant, the plaintiff’s mother, leased the second floor apartment. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on the exterior front steps of the two-family house. Defendant demonstrated she had a contractual arrangement with the property owner to remove ice and snow and, because plaintiff was not a party to the agreement, no duty of care was owed plaintiff (no Espinal factors were alleged by the plaintiff). But defendant raised questions of fact in opposition:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Here, the defendant established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff was not a party to the oral agreement between the defendant and the property owner … . Since the plaintiff did not allege facts in her pleadings that would establish the possible applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, the defendant … was not required to affirmatively establish that these exceptions did not apply

However, in opposition … , the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether … .  defendant’s oral agreement with the property owner regarding maintenance was comprehensive and exclusive so as to entirely displace the property owner’s duty to maintain … the exterior front steps and the gutter … . Additionally, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual notice of an alleged recurrent dangerous condition regarding ice formation on the steps due to the leaky gutter, and was thus chargeable with constructive notice of each specific occurrence of the condition … .  Sampaiolopes v Lopes, 2019 NY Slip Op 03835, Second Dept 6-15-19

 

, , ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTING MEDICAL EXPERT OPINIONS ABOUT A DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF CARE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined plaintiff’s expert affidavit raised questions of fact about whether defendant’s treatment of plaintiff’s decedent departed from accepted standards of practice. Granting summary judgment to defendants is not appropriate where there are conflicting medical expert opinions:

… [V]ascular surgeon Jon Kirwin from Kings County Hospital surgically created an arteriovenous fistula (hereinafter AVF) in the decedent’s upper left arm as an access site for dialysis treatments. … [D]uring one of the decedent’s scheduled dialysis visits … , a nurse examined the decedent and, believing that the AVF was infected, conferred with … [the] attending nephrologist, who directed that the decedent be transferred to Kings County Hospital’s emergency room for evaluation. The decedent presented to Kings County Hospital where he was evaluated by Kirwin, who cleared him for dialysis. The decedent underwent dialysis at Kings County Hospital without incident that day, and two days later reported to Utica for his scheduled dialysis treatment. The decedent underwent dialysis at Utica on August 27, 2010, and August 30, 2010, without incident. On August 31, 2010, the decedent was found unconscious at home and died on the way to the hospital. The cause of death was a rupture of the AVF. * * *

… [I]n support of their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, the moving defendants submitted expert affirmations that established, prima facie, that none of them departed from good and accepted standards of medical practice in their treatment of the decedent and that no alleged departure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact through her expert affirmations as to whether the defendants departed from accepted standards of practice by continuing with dialysis on an AVF that presented with infection and aneurysmal dilatation and whether the continued dialysis caused the AVF to rupture. “Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions. Such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury” … . Hutchinson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03775, Second Dept 5-15-19

 

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