You are here: / Negligence
,

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER OR A TENANT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the NYC Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment in this third party assault case should have been granted. Plaintiff, who was assaulted in defendant’s building, did not raise a question of fact on whether the assailant was an intruder or a tenant. The defendant would only be liable if, due to negligence, an intruder entered the building and committed the assault:

NYCHA met its prima facie burden by demonstrating that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the assailant was an intruder, as opposed to a tenant or invitee lawfully on the premises … . In support of its motion, NYCHA submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she was not a resident and did not know any other tenants in the building aside from her two patients. Plaintiff also testified that she did not see her assailant’s face because he kept his face covered with the hood of his sweatshirt and that she did not know if her assailant was a tenant or guest.

We previously have held that the victim’s familiarity with building residents, a history of ongoing criminal activity, and the assailant’s failure to conceal his or her identity tend to demonstrate that the assailant was more likely than not an intruder … . Here, plaintiff’s testimony demonstrates that these important factors were not present. Thus, plaintiff “provided no evidence from which a jury could conclude, without pure speculation, that it was more likely than not that the assailant was an intruder” … . Laniox v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02026, First Dept 3-19-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ DECEDENT’S PHARMACY RECORDS IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE COLLISION CASE ARE NOT PROTECTED BY PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE AND MUST BE DISCLOSED SUBJECT TO TIME LIMITATIONS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ decedent’s pharmacy records were not protected by physician-patient privilege and must be disclosed to plaintiff, subject to certain limitations and an in camera review. Plaintiff was injured when her bicycle collided with a vehicle driven by decedent:

We agree with plaintiffs, however, that decedent’s pharmacy records are not protected by the physician-patient privilege (see CPLR 4504 [a] … ) and are “material and necessary” to the prosecution of the action (CPLR 3101 [a] …). Nevertheless, we conclude that plaintiffs’ request for records “before and after” the collision was overly broad, and we therefore limit disclosure of the pharmacy records to the six-month period immediately preceding the collision. Furthermore, those records “should not be released to [plaintiffs] until the court has conducted an in camera review thereof, so that irrelevant information is redacted”… . … [D]efendants are directed to submit to the court, for the six-month period  immediately preceding the accident, pharmacy records identifying the medications prescribed to decedent and the prescribed dosages of those medications, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for an in camera review of those records. Carr-Hoagland v Patterson, 2019 NY Slip Op 02000, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FARM EQUIPMENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this products liability action should have been granted. Plaintiff “was working inside of a piece of farm equipment known as a grain cart, she lost her footing and her right leg became caught in a rotating auger.” A steel safety guard covering the auger had apparently been removed:

… [T]he Killbros defendants submitted the affidavit of an expert, which was incorporated by reference into Bentley’s moving papers, who opined that plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred if the steel safety guard had not been removed. …

Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability causes of action insofar as they are predicated on a design defect theory by submitting evidence that the product was reasonably safe … . The Killbros defendants’ expert averred that the steel safety guard was manufactured in accordance with industry standards, was designed to last the life of the product, and was “state of the art” inasmuch as it was permanently welded to the interior of the grain cart and could not be removed except by using an acetylene torch or other such heavy-duty tool … . …

… [T]he Killbros defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action against them alleging negligent design and manufacture. “[I]nasmuch as there is almost no difference between a prima facie case in negligence and one in strict liability,” we conclude that plaintiffs similarly failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to their cause of action for negligent design and manufacture … . Beechler v Kill Bros. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 01993, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT BASED UPON PURE SPECULATION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The cause of the fall was not based upon pure speculation. Plaintiff fell stepping out of a bath tub at a hotel:

… [D]efendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and giving her the benefit of every reasonable inference … , establishes that plaintiff believed that the alleged dangerous or defective configuration or installation of the tub caused her to fall and sustain injuries. In addition, defendants failed to establish in support of their motion the absence of a dangerous or defective condition, and thus they were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on that ground either … . We agree with defendants, however, that the court properly granted their motion to the extent that plaintiff alleged that they were negligent in failing to warn of dangerous and defective conditions. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that any dangerous or defective condition was open and obvious, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . DelRosario v Liverpool Lodging, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01986, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NO LONGER NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted the plaintiff in a traffic accident case no longer has to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to warrant summary judgment:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of defendants by submitting an affidavit stating that as she was driving through the intersection she noticed that defendant driver failed to stop at the stop sign when plaintiff had the right of way (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a]). Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate her own freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment as to defendants’ liability … . Garcia v McCrea, 2019 NY Slip Op 01842, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEATBELTS IN A TAXICAB VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND IS NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the failure to provide seatbelts in  taxicab violates the Vehicle and Traffic Law and constitutes negligence:

The failure to provide seatbelts in a taxicab is a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383, and constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . Where an injured party fails to wear an available seatbelt, such failure would go to damages, not liability … . That is not the case when the vehicle owner fails to provide seatbelts in the first instance … . Grant v AAIJ African Mkt. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01823, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL CALL COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED, THE LIGHTER BURDEN OF PROOF PURSUANT TO THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted because the cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s fall could not be identified. The Noseworthy lighter burden of proof did not apply. Although plaintiff’s expert identified defects in the area where plaintiff’s decedent fell, none of the defects were demonstrated to have caused the fall:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Noseworthy doctrine does not apply to the circumstances of this case, since the defendants’ knowledge concerning the cause of the decedent’s accident is no greater than that of the plaintiff … . Even accepting the defects identified in the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the decedent’s fall was proximately caused by those allegedly unsafe conditions … . ” Since it is just as likely that the accident could have been caused by some other factor, such as a misstep or loss of balance, any determination by the trier of fact as to the cause of the accident would be based upon sheer speculation'” … . Perrelli v Evangelista, 2019 NY Slip Op 01807, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

​

MERELY QUESTIONING THE CREDIBILITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant did not submit evidence refuting plaintiff’s explanation of the cause of her fall (a hole in the stairs). Merely questioning the credibility of the plaintiff did not raise a question of fact:

Plaintiff was injured when, while walking down a staircase in defendant’s building, her foot struck a hole in the stairs, causing her to fall from the third floor to the second floor. Defendant failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence refuting plaintiff’s testimony identifying the cause of her fall … . Defendant’s challenge to the credibility of plaintiff’s evidence is a matter for resolution by a trier of fact … . Morales v 320 E. 176th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01711, First Dept 3-12-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GROSS NEGLIGENCE MIGHT OVERCOME A CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION ON LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether gross negligence might overcome a contractual limitation on liability. Here a bid on a highway project turned out to be more than $80 million short, which resulted in the withdrawal of the bid. The project was for a toll road, the toll to be paid to the builder of the road. The bid was low because the date of the beginning of construction, rather than the end of construction, was used to calculate the income from the toll. Gross negligence factors included, the firing of key personnel overseeing the creation of the bid, failure to follow company policy in reviewing the bid, and departure from industry standards:

It is well-settled that contractual limitations on liability are generally enforceable … . However, “public policy forbids a party from attempting to avoid liability for damages caused by grossly negligent conduct” … . Thus, a gross negligence claim will be sustained where a party’s conduct “evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” … . S.A. De Obras y Servicios, COPASA v Bank of Nova Scotia, 2019 NY Slip Op 01706, First Dept 5-12-19

 

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION ON THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case should have been granted. Defendants demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of a wet condition:

Defendants … relied on plaintiff’s testimony that, in the 15 minutes before his accident, he had gone up and down the stairs without incident and did not notice any liquid or water on the steps, demonstrating that the alleged dangerous condition was not visible and apparent for a sufficient time before the accident to provide constructive notice … . Although plaintiff did testify that he saw a woman with a mop coming down the stairs as he was going upstairs the first time, implying that she could have caused the wet condition, he acknowledged that the surveillance video did not show any woman with a mop. Furthermore, defendants’ witnesses stated that the daytime worker for defendant United Building Maintenance Associates, Inc. was only responsible for cleaning the area near the ATM machines on the first floor and never mopped, and that the staircase was cleaned by night personnel. Fernandez v JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 2019 NY Slip Op 01645, First Dept 5-7-19

 

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