You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLAINTIFF PRESENTED ONLY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall:

… [T]he landlord met her prima facie burden on her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition transcript which demonstrated, prima facie, that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . The plaintiff’s theory that she slipped on water dripping from the ceiling was speculative in light of, inter alia, her deposition testimony that she “personally didn’t see any water dripping, but there must have been a drip from the ceiling because the ground was wet.” Moreover, [third-party defendant] testified at his deposition that, although there had been a prior water leak coming from the ceiling into the kitchen, that leak was not near the location of the plaintiff’s accident. Bilska v Truszkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 02490, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS INSPECTED OR TREATED ON THE DAY OF THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the icy condition in this slip and fall case. The defendant presented evidence of the manager’s and superintendent’s general practices but did not present evidence was inspected or treated on the day of the fall:

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the defendant’s site manager merely referred to her general practice of traversing the breezeway where the accident allegedly occurred, one to two times per week, but provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the area prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . … The superintendent’s testimony failed to provide specific details of his snow removal efforts and salting near the time of the incident, and, thus, was too general to establish lack of constructive notice … . Ahmetaj v Mountainview Condominium, 2019 NY Slip Op 02489, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s first cause of action was properly dismissed because it alleged a theory of liability in this slip and fall case that was not alleged in the notice of claim. Apparently the plaintiff fell after getting off defendants’ bus:

[In the notice of claim] the plaintiff alleged … that the accident was caused by “the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of . . . New York City Transit Authority in the ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, construction, renovation, supervision and control of the aforesaid location.” …

… [T]he … defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action … by submitting proof that the amended notice of claim contained no allegation that the bus operator was negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to alight … . Rojas v Hazzard, 2019 NY Slip Op 02573, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S HEALTH AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS NEVER PLACED IN CONTROVERSY AND THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE WAS NOT WAIVED BY A LETTER TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY INDICATING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM DEMENTIA, ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant driver’s (Rozansky’s) medical condition at the time of this 2004 traffic accident was not “in controversy” and therefore the driver’s medical records were not discoverable. Rozansky, who subsequently died, had, in 2006, submitted a letter from his social worker to plaintiff’s attorney claiming he suffered from dementia, anxiety and depression, allegedly to be excused from a deposition, but otherwise the issue of the Rozansky’s health was not raised:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating that Rozansky’s condition at the time of the accident was “in controversy” within the meaning of CPLR 3121(a) … . Furthermore, even if the plaintiffs had met that burden, neither Rozansky nor his estate waived the privilege attached to the medical records, as the defendant has not asserted a counterclaim or sought to excuse Rozansky’s conduct at the time of the accident on the basis of some condition … . Contrary to the conclusion of our dissenting colleagues, Rozansky did not place his mental condition at the time of the accident “in controversy” or waive the privilege attached to his medical records by allegedly declining to be deposed … . Neither Rozansky nor his estate have sought to excuse his conduct at the time of the accident … , due to any condition. At best, Rozansky placed his mental condition in September 2006 at issue by allegedly refusing to appear for a deposition … . The plaintiffs could have moved at that time to compel the deposition and challenged the social worker’s diagnosis. Instead, nine years after the social worker’s letter, and six years after Rozansky’s death, and after filing three notes of issue over the course of some seven years, indicating that discovery was complete and the case was ready for trial, the plaintiffs purported to use the mechanism of a trial subpoena to compel production of Rozansky’s medical records from October 22, 1999, to the present. We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that Rozansky’s alleged invocation of dementia in September 2006, by submission of a letter from his social worker, established a waiver of the privilege attached to his medical records from October 22, 1999. Peterson v Estate of John Rozansky, 2019 NY Slip Op 02568, Second Department, 4-3-19

 

,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TRIP AND FALL IN TREE WELL NEAR THE SIDEWALK, THE TREE WELL IS NOT UNDER THE PROPERTY OWNER’S CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant property owner’s (Val-Mac’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff fell in a tree well near the sidewalk abutting defendant’s property:

Plaintiff tripped and fell in a tree well as he walked on the sidewalk in front of Val-Mac’s property, which was undergoing repairs to a sewer line running to the street. Absent evidence that Val-Mac controlled the construction or made special use of the sidewalk, there is no issue of fact as to whether it proximately caused the accident, rather than “merely furnish[ing] the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event” … . As the tree well is not part of the sidewalk under Val-Mac’s control, the court properly granted summary judgment … . Schwartz v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02465, First Dept 4-2-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED BROKEN LOCK, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AS OPPOSED TO AN INVITED GUEST, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS THE VICTIM OF A TARGETED ATTACK, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this third-party assault case. Plaintiff was shot inside the building. Defendant demonstrated it did not have notice of an alleged broken lock which would have allowed an intruder to enter the building. And the evidence did not demonstrate the assailant was an intruder as opposed to an invited guest. In addition, plaintiff admitted he was the victim of a targeted attack, which severed any causal relationship with defendant’s alleged negligence:

… [P]laintiff alleges that he was injured when, while visiting his wife in NYCHA’s building, he was shot by defendant Lawrence, who was able to enter the building because of a broken lock on the building’s front door. The record establishes that NYCHA lacked notice of a broken lock inasmuch as NYCHA submitted evidence showing that although the front door lock had been repaired a number of times in the months leading up to the incident, NYCHA’s supervisor of caretakers testified that the lock was working on the morning of the incident, and for almost a full week beforehand … .

The evidence also fails to show that the alleged assailant was an unauthorized intruder, rather than an invited guest … . The alleged assailant testified that he lived across from the subject building, that he had numerous family members and friends who lived in the building, and that he was a frequent visitor of the building. Furthermore, plaintiff admitted that he was the victim of a targeted attack by the alleged assailant, which severed the causal nexus between NYCHA’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injuries … . Roldan v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02462, First Dept 4-2-19

 

MISSING CHAIR IN FRONT OF A SLOT MACHINE IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NONACTIONABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE ATTEMPTED TO SIT IN FRONT OF A MACHINE WHERE THERE WAS NO CHAIR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the absence of a chair in front of a slot machine was open and obvious and nonactionable:

… [P]laintiff was injured when she fell while attempting to sit down at a slot machine that did not have a chair. Defendants showed that the missing chair was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous by submitting videotape footage showing the subject slot machine without a chair. Plaintiff also testified that she had previously noticed chairs missing from slot machines at the casino, and that she had been seated next to the subject machine that was without a chair for 20 to 25 minutes before her fall … .

Plaintiff’s opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her argument that slot machines are distracting to the point of being all-encompassing, is unavailing, as she did not provide any probative evidence as to how distracted a person becomes when she or he uses slot machines. Plaintiff’s testimony that she was distracted by the slot machines does not lead to a conclusion that they are so distracting that their mere existence makes an open and obvious condition such as a missing chair any less open and obvious … . Furthermore, that a similar accident apparently occurred at defendant casino does not lead to the conclusion that a missing chair is a latent or inherently dangerous condition. Vasquez v Yonkers Racing Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02461, First Dept 4-2-19

 

DEFENDANT’S SLOW MOVING TRUCK FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION, DIFFICULTY SEEING BECAUSE OF SUNLIGHT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXCUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this traffic-accident case:

In this rear-end collision case, the fact that the truck owned and operated by defendants had entered onto the parkway one exit earlier than authorized by a permit issued by the Department of Transportation, standing alone, does not establish that the early entry onto the parkway was a proximate cause of the accident … . The record reflects that the accident occurred on a dry and sunny day with light traffic, that defendant Paolino was driving the truck slowly, and that Paolino had turned on the truck’s hazard lights. The truck’s presence on the parkway merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, but not its cause … .

Plaintiffs’ proffered excuse for the accident, that the bright sunlight may have made it difficult for the decedent to see defendants’ truck driving through the tunnel, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collusion … . The affidavit by plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert is not based on any evidence and therefore fails to raise an issue of fact … . Battocchio v Paolino, 2019 NY Slip Op 02477, First Dept 4-2-19

 

, ,

ACTION BASED UPON FAILURE TO SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A HOSPITAL REST ROOM SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action, which alleged inadequate supervision when plaintiff used a hospital rest room, sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the action was time-barred:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to properly assess her condition and the degree of her supervisory needs in the restroom, a claim sounding in medical malpractice, and her action, brought three years after her injuries, is therefore untimely … . Because the loss of consortium claim is derivative of the injured plaintiff’s claim, that cause of action must also be dismissed as untimely … . Kim v New York Presbyt., 2019 NY Slip Op 02425, First Dept 3-28-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS APPEARED FOR THE 50-h HEARING, PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY REFUSED TO LET THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFY UNLESS EACH PLAINTIFF COULD HEAR THE OTHER’S TESTIMONY, BECAUSE THE 50-h HEARING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO BRINGING SUIT, PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that plaintiffs were precluded from proceeding with the lawsuit because, although plaintiffs appeared for the 50-h hearing, plaintiffs attorney refused to participate in the 50-h hearing unless each plaintiff was present when the other testified. The majority held that the 50-h hearing is a condition precedent to any lawsuit and the statute does not create a right for plaintiff’s to be present for each other’s testimony at the hearing:

The purpose of General Municipal Law § 50-h is to enable a municipality to make a prompt investigation of the circumstances of a claim by examining the claimant about the facts of the claim … . The oral examination of a claimant pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h serves to supplement the notice of claim and provides an investigatory tool to the municipality, with a view toward settlement … . “Compliance with a demand for a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a municipal defendant, and the failure to so comply warrants dismissal of the action” … . “A party who has failed to comply with a demand for examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality” … . …

” [A] court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there, nor will a court read into a statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to enact'”  … . Moreover, “[i]n the construction of statutes, each word or phrase in the enactment must be given its appropriate meaning” … , which is in derogation of the common law, is to be strictly construed  … . In strictly construing a statute, courts “will not go beyond the clearly expressed provisions of the act” … . Colon v Martin, 2019 NY Slip Op 02312, Second Dept 3-27-19

​

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