You are here: / Negligence
,

LACK OF SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT’S FALL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGING IN AGE-APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TAKING TURNS JUMPING OVER A KNEE-HIGH FENCE WHEN SHE FELL AND WAS INJURED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this school recess injury case was properly granted. Plaintiff, who was in eighth grade, was injured when her shin struck a knee-high fence as she attempted to jump over it, causing her to fall on a concrete walkway. She had been taking turns with her friends jumping the fence for 10 or 15 minutes:

The plaintiff testified at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and her deposition that she did not see any school personnel outside the school building either before or at the time of the incident. …

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . However, “[s]chools are not insurers of safety, . . . for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . Here, the defendant established … that the plaintiff was engaged in an age-appropriate activity that did not constitute dangerous play, and that the alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Chiauzzi v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 02310, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , , ,

DECEDENT’S CONSENT TO SURGERY SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, THE CONSENT WAS AUTHENTICATED BY THE MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice and wrongful death actions should have been dismissed. With respect to the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, the court held that the submission of the informed consent form by the defendant did not violate the Dead Man’s Statute:

The plaintiff contends that Meyerson [defendant surgeon] cannot rely upon the portion of his expert’s affidavit which states that the decedent was aware of the risks of the procedure because he signed a consent form for a similar procedure in 2012, because this evidence would be inadmissible pursuant to CPLR 4519, the so-called Dead Man’s Statute. CPLR 4519 “precludes a party or person interested in the underlying event from offering testimony concerning a personal transaction or communication with the decedent” … .

While evidence excludable at trial under CPLR 4519 may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment so long as it is not the sole evidence proffered … , such evidence “should not be used to support summary judgment” … . However, the statute does not bar “the introduction of documentary evidence against a deceased’s estate. . . . [A]n adverse party’s introduction of a document authored by a deceased does not violate the Dead Man’s Statute, as long as the document is authenticated by a source other than an interested witness’s testimony concerning a transaction or communication with the deceased” … . Inasmuch as the expert’s affidavit as to the decedent’s execution of the form was predicated upon the medical records, which contained the decedent’s consent form for the prior surgery and on which the expert relied, and the records were properly authenticated and submitted on the motion, Meyerson properly relied upon the expert opinion to support his motion … . Wright v Morning Star Ambulette Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02381, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , ,

STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THEORIES IN THE PLEADINGS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this student-on-student assault case. The assault arose abruptly and and lasted 20 to 30 seconds and was not foreseeable. In addition, the theories of liability not mentioned in the notice of claim, but asserted in the pleadings, should have been dismissed:

… [T]he School District established, prima facie, that the alleged assault by the fellow student was an unforeseeable act and that the School District had no actual or constructive notice of prior conduct of the students involved here which was similar to the subject incident … . Moreover, the School District established, prima facie, that “the incident occurred in so short a period of time that any negligent supervision on its part was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries” … . …

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . However, if the defendant is a municipality, the plaintiff may not raise in the complaint causes of action or legal theories that were not directly or indirectly mentioned in the notice of claim and that “substantially alter” the nature of the claim or add a new theory of liability … . … By submitting evidence that the notice of claim did not mention … causes of action and legal theories, the School District established its … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing all of the causes of action, other than negligent supervision, that were asserted in the complaint and bill of particulars against the School District … . Meyer v Magalios, 2019 NY Slip Op 02336, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, ,

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

 

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