You are here: / Negligence
, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT FINDING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING NO DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING OR FUTURE LOST WAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HER CHILD WAS INJURED IN UTERO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict finding liability in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted, and the plaintiff’s motion to set aside so much of the verdict as awarded no damages for past or future pain and suffering or future lost earnings should have been granted. The action alleged damage to plaintiff’s child in utero:

Here, the plaintiff adduced legally sufficient proof to establish a departure from the standard of care and as to causation. In particular, the plaintiff’s expert obstetrician-gynecologist, Barry Schifrin, opined that the child suffered a placental “abruption plus or minus fetomaternal transfusion,” which caused “a problem of oxygen availability in the baby’s brain.” Schifrin opined that continuous EFM testing should have been undertaken beginning on the date of the mother’s fall, November 4, 2008. Schifrin testified that the EFM performed on November 12, 2008, showed that the child had been in distress for “quite some time.” The plaintiff’s expert pediatric hematologist, Jill DeJong, opined that the child’s anemia was related to a fetomaternal transfusion. Based on that evidence, the jury could have reasonably found that had the respondents undertaken or begun continuous EFM on November 10, 2008, the harm to the child would have been avoided or mitigated. Further, although the respondents’ experts opined that the respondents did not depart from accepted practice, the jury was entitled to resolve the conflicting expert testimony in the plaintiff’s favor  … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law … .

The jury’s failure to award any damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering deviates materially from reasonable compensation, in light of the evidence of the severe deficits suffered by the child, her ongoing need for medical treatment, ongoing medical events such as intractable seizures, and evidence of her consciousness and ability to interact with others (see CPLR 5501[c] …). The jury’s failure to award any damages for future lost earnings also deviates materially from reasonable compensation … . Larkin v Wagner, 2019 NY Slip Op 02327, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

UNEXCUSED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED 50-h HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ failure to comply with defendants’ demand for a 50-h hearing required dismissal of the complaint. Defendants were sued in their capacities as municipal employees acting within the scope of their employment:

We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. “It is well settled that a plaintiff who has not complied with General Municipal Law § 50-h (1) is precluded from maintaining an action against a municipality” … . Here, plaintiffs failed to appear at the scheduled examination due to an apparent disagreement with their attorney. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs had the burden of rescheduling the examination and, because they failed to do so, they were barred by statute from commencing an action … . “Although compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-h (1) may be excused in exceptional circumstances’ “… , there were no such circumstances here. Kluczynski v Zwack, 2019 NY Slip Op 02236, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS FOUR CAR LENGTHS AWAY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WAS YELLOW DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff made a left turn in front of defendant. Plaintiff’s claim that defendant was proceeding through a yellow light did not raise a question of fact:

… [W]e conclude that the record establishes that plaintiff made a left turn in front of defendant’s oncoming vehicle, which was only four car lengths away from the intersection and traveling at the speed limit of 40 miles per hour. At that speed and distance, defendant entered the intersection with insufficient time to take evasive action to avoid the collision … . Thus, defendant’s vehicle was so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard to the left-turning plaintiff, and plaintiff was therefore required to yield the right-of-way to defendant (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141).

In addition, plaintiff’s assertion that the traffic light facing her vehicle had changed from green to yellow just before she started to make her left turn does not raise a question of fact inasmuch as a yellow light would not deprive defendant of the right-of-way and confer it upon plaintiff … . Godwin v Mancuso, 2019 NY Slip Op 02248, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THRESHOLD STRIP WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSE PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate the threshold strip which allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall was not inherently dangerous and was trivial:

“[W]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case” … , and the existence or nonexistence of a defect or dangerous condition “is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . Defendants’ submissions in support of their motion included excerpts of plaintiffs’ deposition testimony and defendants’ affidavits, which raised a question of fact whether the threshold strip on the step created an unreasonably dangerous or defective condition. We further conclude that summary judgment dismissing the complaint was not warranted on the ground that the alleged defect was, as a matter of law, too trivial to be actionable. It is well settled that “a small difference in height or other physically insignificant defect is actionable if its intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances magnify the dangers it poses, so that it unreasonably imperil[s] the safety of’ a pedestrian” . Here, it is impossible to ascertain from the black and white photographs submitted by defendants in support of the motion the width, depth, elevation, height differential or actual appearance of the threshold, and thus defendants failed to establish that the defect was, in fact, trivial. In addition, the threshold and step were located in a doorway, “where a person’s attention would be drawn to the door, not to the [step]” … . Wiedenbeck v Lawrence, 2019 NY Slip Op 02246, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STATE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s motion for summary judgment in this bicycling accident case was properly denied. There were questions of fact whether the state had constructive notice of the road conditions which allegedly caused the accident:

There was no evidence that defendant had actual notice of this hazard and only conflicting evidence regarding constructive notice. Savoury testified that there had been no prior complaints or accidents and that the road was regularly inspected . However, defendant may be charged with constructive notice of the hazard if it “existed for a sufficient period of time to allow defendant[] to discover and rectify the problem” … . Although most of the witnesses attributed the bumps to the effects of cars driving over cold patch and the delamination to the effects of the freeze/thaw cycle, evidence regarding the length of time that the bumps and delaminated section were present was equivocal, and there was no evidence regarding how long the debris had been on the shoulder … . Even if defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition, claimant’s submissions evince that temporary repair work had been done in the months leading up to the accident, and the submissions fail to demonstrate what “reasonable [corrective] measures” should have been taken given the circumstances … . Given the myriad factual questions presented, including whether defendant had notice of the hazardous condition in the highway but failed to respond with appropriate maintenance measures, the Court of Claims properly denied claimant’s motion. Schleede v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02188, Third Dept 3-21-19

 

, , , ,

IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial, determined that videotaped deposition testimony from proceedings in other states was not admissible in the New York action. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent died from exposure to asbestos in a joint compound made by Georgia-Pacific. An employee of Georgia-Pacific, Charles Lehnert, who was familiar with the formula for the joint compound, gave the videotaped deposition testimony:

CPLR 3117 (a) (3) provides, in relevant part, that “any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used . . . by any party for any purpose against any other party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had the notice required under these rules.” Here, defendant was permitted to introduce deposition testimony given by Lehnert in the 2007 Texas state court action for the purpose of demonstrating that it contradicted the 2001 and 2003 testimony that plaintiff had been permitted to introduce as part of its case-in-chief. However, although defendant was a party to the 2007 Texas action, plaintiff was not, and he had no opportunity to be present and cross-examine Lehnert. Thus, this testimony was not admissible under CPLR 3117 (a) (3) … . …

Although defendant did not cross-appeal, our holding reversing Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Lehnert’s 2007 testimony necessarily brings up for review Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to preclude Lehnert’s 2001 and 2003 testimony (seeCPLR 5501 [a] [1] …). Upon review, we find that none of Lehnert’s deposition testimony should have been admitted into evidence at this trial. Although a live witness may be impeached with prior inconsistent testimony, Lehnert never testified for any party in this action, either at the trial itself or at any pretrial deposition. He was merely a witness who had testified years ago in multiple other states on the subject of the content of Georgia-Pacific joint compound. Rather than calling him (or any other witness) to testify on this topic, both parties resorted to retrieving video of Lehnert’s testimony in those earlier actions and selectively playing those portions they believed supported their respective contentions. The jury was essentially asked to determine whether Lehnert, an empty chair in New York, testified more credibly in Illinois or Texas. In this scenario, CPLR 3117 (a) (2) did not permit plaintiff to introduce the 2001 and 2003 depositions on his case-in-chief, and CPLR 3117 (c) did not permit defendant to impeach those depositions with another deposition. Billok v Union Carbide Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02185, Third Dept 3-21-19

 

,

DAMAGES AWARDED 69-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the damages awarded the 69-year-old plaintiff for past and future pain and suffering were too high:

Judgment … upon a jury verdict, which … awarded plaintiff $1.2 million for past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering over 10 years, $255,582 for future medical expenses, and $250,000 for future loss of earnings … unanimously modified … to remand the matter for a new trial on damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering, unless plaintiff stipulates … to reduce the awards for past pain and suffering to $1,000,000 and for future pain and suffering to $675,000 … . Dacaj v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02171, First Dept 3-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, ANY CONFLICT IN PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DID NOT RENDER IT INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the escalator slip and fall case should not have been granted:

The defendant’s submissions, which included a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the escalator steps … . Furthermore, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he slipped and fell on a wet step while he was riding an escalator. In light of this testimony, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his accident … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and any conflict in the testimony or evidence presented merely raised an issue of fact for the factfinder to resolve … . Kerzhner v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02077, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD ONLY TWO SECONDS TO REACT TO FORKLIFT WHICH ENTERED THE ROADWAY BLOCKING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Defendant driver (Kim) had only two seconds to react when a forklift entered the roadway blocking the right-of-way:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way … . A driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found partially responsible for an accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident. “Although a driver with a right-of-way . . . has a duty to …  use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … .

Here, Kim established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the driver of the forklift negligently entered the roadway mid-block from in front of a parked truck without yielding the right-of-way to Kim, and that such negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The evidence submitted in support of the motion … demonstrated that Kim had, at most, two seconds to react before the forklift struck the passenger side of his vehicle. Thus, Kim demonstrated that he was not negligent for failing to avoid colliding with the forklift … . Jeong Sook Lee-Son v Doe, 2019 NY Slip Op 02073, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPERLY RAISED AN ISSUE NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted because the plaintiff’s expert affidavit was conclusory and speculative. The court noted that plaintiff’s expert raised an issue that was not discernable from the plaintiff’s bill of particulars and therefore should not have been considered:

…[T]he defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an expert affirmation indicating that the treatment and care given to the plaintiff by the defendant on May 13, 2013, did not deviate from accepted community standards of practice, that the plaintiff’s infection, which occurred more than four months after that visit, was too remote in time to have been proximately caused by the defendant’s treatment, and that the defendant had the plaintiff’s informed consent for the procedure.

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affirmation of her expert, who opined that the defendant did not follow the good and accepted podiatric standard of care because although the defendant tested the plaintiff’s foot pulse and found it to be low, the defendant did not refer the plaintiff to a vascular surgeon. We agree with the defendant that this assertion was not readily discernable from the allegations in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars, and, thus, was a new theory of liability that should not have been considered by the Supreme Court … . Iodice v Giordano, 2019 NY Slip Op 02072, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

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