You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS STANDARD APPLIED IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-POLICE CAR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the reckless standard applied in this pedestrian-police car traffic accident case. The court noted that the governmental function immunity doctrine does not apply to this scenario:

The governmental function immunity doctrine does not apply in this case where plaintiff pedestrian was injured when she was struck by a police vehicle that was allegedly pursuing a vehicle that had committed a traffic infraction … . Instead, where a plaintiff alleges that a municipality and/or its employees were negligent in the ownership or operation of an authorized emergency vehicle while engaged in one of the activities protected by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the “reckless disregard” standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) applies … .

Here, a factual issue exists as to whether defendants were engaged in a protected activity under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), namely, proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[b][2]), while pursuing a vehicle for a traffic violation so as to apply the reckless standard of care as opposed to ordinary negligence principles … . Santana v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01348, First Dept 2-26-19

 

, , , , ,

POLICE DOG RELEASED TO TRACK SUSPECTS WENT OUT OF THE HANDLER’S SIGHT AND BIT PLAINTIFF, 42 USC 1983, NEGLIGENCE AND BATTERY ACTIONS SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POLICE OFFICER ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT RULE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined several causes of action property survived summary judgment in this case where a police officer (Ashe) released his K-9 partner (a trained police dog named Elza) which bit plaintiff as he was walking to his car. After Elza was released she ran out of Ashe’s sight. Ashe was attempting to use Elza to track suspects who had just robbed a gas station. The Third Department held, inter aliia, that the 42 USC 1983 action properly survived summary judgment, Ashe was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the battery action properly survived summary judgment, and the city was entitled to summary judgment on the common-law negligence action based on the professional judgment rule:

There is at least a question of fact as to whether a reasonable police officer, aware that the dog could not differentiate a suspect from an innocent bystander, would allow the dog to search off leash and out of sight of the handler. Moreover, the record contains evidence from which a jury could find that the City “fail[ed] to train its employees in a relevant respect [that] evidences a deliberate indifference to the rights of its inhabitants[, which] can . . . be properly thought of as a city policy or custom that is actionable under [42 USC] § 1983” … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ expert … opined in his affidavit that Ashe failed to comply with standard police practice, including keeping the K-9 within visual range and providing audible warnings. Based on the foregoing, there are triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment on the issue of Ashe’s entitlement to qualified immunity … . …

… [T]he City was entitled to dismissal of the common-law negligence claims based on the professional judgment rule. ” That rule ‘insulates a municipality from liability for its employees’ performance of their duties where the . . . conduct involves the exercise of professional judgment such as electing one among many acceptable methods of carrying out tasks, or making tactical decisions’ … . Relf v City of Troy, 2019 NY Slip Op 01287, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

​

, ,

SNOWPLOW DRIVER WAS EXEMPT FROM STANDARD NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT ACT RECKLESSLY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the snowplow driver was not liable in this traffic accident case. The highway-work exemption from standard negligence applied and the driver was not reckless:

There is little dispute that the Court of Claims erred in applying Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, which affords certain privileges to “[t]he driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation” … and has no applicability to a vehicle such as a snowplow put to its intended use . The pertinent statute is instead Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), which “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles . . . which are ‘actually engaged …  in work on a highway,’ and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care” … . Inasmuch as “the snowplow [here] was clearing the road during a snowstorm” when the accident occurred, both the snowplow and its driver are exempted “from the rules of the road” … . As such, liability will only attach if defendant and its employees behaved in a reckless manner, meaning a “conscious disregard of ‘a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow'” … . Howell v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01281, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

​

,

VILLAGE CODE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES WRITTEN NOTICE OF A SIDEWALK DEFECT BEFORE MUNICIPAL LIABILITY CAN BE IMPOSED APPLIES TO A STAIRWAY FROM A PUBLIC ROAD TO A MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT, STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the village code provision which requires written notice of a sidewalk defect before the village can be held liable applies to a stairway connecting a public road to a municipal parking lot. Because plaintiff did not plead or prove written notice of a stairway defect, plaintiff’s slip and fall action was properly dismissed:

In Woodson v City of New York, this Court determined that a stairway may be classified as a sidewalk for purposes of a prior written notice statute if it “functionally fulfills the same purpose that a standard sidewalk would serve” (93 NY2d 936, 937-938 [1999] …). * * *

The courts below correctly applied Woodson in holding that the stairway at issue “functionally fulfills the same purpose” as a standard sidewalk, and therefore plaintiff was required to show that the Village received prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition … . Hinton v Village of Pulaski, 2019 NY Slip Op 01261, CtApp 2-21-19

 

, ,

RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 DID NOT ENTITLE CHEVRON TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA CASE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined that defendant Chevron was not entitled to summary judgment in this asbestos-mesothelioma action. Plaintiff’s decedent [Mr. South] signed a release in 1997 and Chevron argued the release precluded the subsequent lawsuit:

Like Supreme Court, the Appellate Division concluded that the record did not demonstrate Chevron’s entitlement to summary judgment, because the release did not specifically mention mesothelioma, which then required the court to determine whether extrinsic evidence entitled Chevron to summary judgment. Pointing to the “meager consideration” [$1,750] and the lack of any diagnosis of mesothelioma as to Mr. South at the time he settled, the Appellate Division concluded that the record left open the question of whether the release pertained to an existing pulmonary condition and the fear of some future asbestos-related disease, or if it was intended to release all future asbestos-related diseases arising from Mr. South’s employment by Texaco. The parties agree that, at the time he executed the release, Mr. South suffered from a nonmalignant pulmonary disease but not from mesothelioma or cancer. …

The sole question presented to us on this appeal is whether Chevron has established that the release, coupled with the 1997 complaint, eliminates all material questions of fact and proves that the release bars the claims here as a matter of law. Answering that question requires us to consider the protections afforded to Mr. South by admiralty law and Section 5 of FELA [Federal Employers’ Liability Act] (45 USC § 55), which is incorporated into the Jones Act by 46 USC § 30104. …

… [W]e conclude that Chevron has not met its burden to demonstrate the absence of any material question of fact. The 1997 release does not unambiguously extinguish a future claim for mesothelioma  … . The release itself does not mention mesothelioma. It does say that Mr. South “is giving up the right to bring an action against the Released Parties, or any of them, in the future for any new or different diagnosis that may be made about Claimant’s condition as a result of exposure to any product[.]” But “claimant’s condition” may cabin the “new or different diagnosis” to ones that related to his nonmalignant asbestos-related pulmonary disease—the “condition” both parties agree was the only one he suffered at the time. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 01259, CtApp 2-19-19

 

,

COLLEGE DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO TWO STUDENTS WHO DIED IN A FIRE IN THE OFF-CAMPUS HOUSE THEY WERE RENTING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the college (Marist College) did not owe a duty of care to two students (Kerry and Eva) who died in a fire in an off-campus house (Brennan house). The house was on a private-off-campus-housing list made available to students by the college:

“The threshold question in any negligence action is: does defendant owe a legally recognized duty of care to plaintiff?” … . In the context of this action, a critical consideration in determining whether such a duty exists is whether Marist College’s relationship with either the Brennans or Kerry and Eva placed the college in the best position to protect against the risk of harm … . Also relevant is the principle that “one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully” … . …

… .Marist College did not owe a duty of care to Kerry and Eva. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, Marist College demonstrated … that it did not owe a duty to ensure that the off-campus housing listed on its website, which included the Brennan house, complied with all relevant fire safety standards. Even if, in theory, Marist College could have refused to list landlords on its website unless each landlord’s off-campus housing met all relevant fire safety laws and regulations, imposing such a requirement on the college is simply not warranted because the college is not “in the best position to protect against the risk of harm”… . In this regard, it bears recalling that the doctrine of in loco parentis has no application at the college level … . Adult students who chose to live off campus, as well as the private landlords with whom they enter into a contractual relationship, are in the best position to ensure that off-campus apartments and houses have the required number of smoke detectors and other fire safety features. While the risk of fire is all too foreseeable—often with tragic consequences, as this case demonstrates—”[f]oreseeability, alone, does not define duty—it merely determines the scope of the duty once it is determined to exist” … .

… .Marist College also demonstrated … that it did not assume a duty to ensure that the Brennan house was safe for Kerry and Eva to live in, as the college did not engage in any conduct that may have induced Kerry and Eva to forgo some opportunity to avoid risk, thereby placing them “in a more vulnerable position than [they] would have been in had [Marist College] done nothing” … . In fact, the evidence shows, among other things, that Kerry and Eva found the Brennan house because they knew some of the students who had been renting it. Fitzsimons v Brennan, 2019 NY Slip Op 01200,  Second Dept 2-20-19

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL, HOWEVER DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate the absence of constructive notice of the condition of the stairway where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have granted on that ground. However, although Supreme Court didn’t rule on the issue, the Second Department held that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. While the deposition testimony of the premises’ caretaker demonstrated that the caretaker inspected and cleaned the subject stairwell on a regular basis, the defendant failed to present evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the subject accident occurred … . Thus, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it established that it did not have notice of the alleged hazardous condition.

A defendant in a slip-and-fall case may also establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation … . Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff’s General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and deposition transcripts, which demonstrated that he was unable to identify the cause of his fall without resorting to speculation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard … . Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 01246, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

, ,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED, MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion to deem a late notice of claim timely served should have been granted. The attempt to serve the notice of claim was three years late. Plaintiff, who was born in 2010, brought a medical malpractice action alleging the city hospital was negligent by sending plaintiff’s mother home when she presented at the emergency room complaining of contractions. The Second Department held that the medical records provided the defendant with timely knowledge of the nature of the claim:

The medical records demonstrated that the hospital failed to admit the plaintiff’s mother to the hospital when she presented to the emergency room on November 23, 2010, notwithstanding an order in the emergency room record from a physician that the mother “was to be admitted secondary to non-reassuring fetal heart tracing.” Inasmuch as the medical records, upon independent review, showed that the mother was not admitted to the hospital on November 23, 2010, despite a physician’s order, and that two days later, the plaintiff was delivered one hour after the mother arrived at the hospital and only after a fetal heart monitor alarm sounded four times, they provided the hospital with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . …

… [T]the plaintiff made an initial showing that the hospital would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving a notice of claim, and the hospital failed to rebut the showing with particularized indicia of prejudice… . Further, the absence of prejudice was demonstrated by virtue of the fact that the hospital had possessed timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . J.H. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01203, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

,

COMPLAINT AGAINST A FOSTER CARE AGENCY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT, LOSS OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND EXPENSES FOR THE CHILDREN’S CARE AND TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff, the children’s guardian, stated causes of action against the foster care agency, Graham Windham, for negligent placement of the children and for loss of services of the children and expenses for care and treatment of the children:

“Counties and foster care agencies cannot be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of foster parents, who are essentially contract service providers” … . “However, counties and foster care agencies may be sued to recover damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home”… . Ultimately, to sustain a cause of action for negligent supervision, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . …

… [A] parent may recover damages measured by the pecuniary loss sustained by the injuries to the child, including the value of the child’s services, if any, of which the parent was deprived and reasonable expenses necessarily incurred in an effort to restore the child to health … . Thus, the court should not have directed dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), of so much of the third cause of action insofar as asserted against Graham Windham as sought to recover damages for the loss of the children’s services and the expense for their care and treatment. George v Windham, 2019 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

,

COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION ONLY AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE, AS OPPOSED TO LIABLE FOR THE PARTY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a party cannot obtain common-law indemnification unless it is vicariously liable:

The court properly granted the motions … for summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against them. “[A] party cannot obtain common-law indemnification unless it has been held to be vicariously liable without proof of any negligence . . . on its own part” … , and the only claims ever asserted against defendant [in this case] sought to hold it liable for its own negligence rather than vicariously liable … . Ramirez v Almah, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01153 [169 AD3d 508], First Dept 2-14-19

 

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