You are here: / Negligence

DEFENDANT’S UNATTENDED TOW TRUCK MOVED BACKWARDS INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT),

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant’s tow truck was left running and unattended when it moved backwards into plaintiff’s car:

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where he was injured when defendants’ tow truck was left unattended by its driver, defendant Millar, and rolled backwards into plaintiff’s car, which was stopped behind the tow truck. When a driver fails to secure an unattended vehicle sufficiently to prevent it from starting to move on its own, the driver is negligent …

In opposition, defendants did not raise a triable issue of fact as they failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the collision… . Defendants’ speculation that, even though Millar left the gear in “park” before exiting the tow truck, the gear must have slipped into reverse on its own due to some mechanical failure is insufficient to raise an issue of fact … . Defendants present no evidence of any type of mechanical failure or defect in the tow truck, which Millar was able to drive back to the depot after the accident without incident. Franco v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00377, First Dept 1-22-19

 

,

THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landowner was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The principal of the property owner, 514 West, is also the principal of the tenant, Style, a taxi company. Independent contractors used a hose to wash the cars. Water from the hose froze and plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on the ice. The First Department noted the close connection between 514 West and Style and found that 514 West did not establish it was on out-of-possession landlord:

514 West, which owns the building adjacent to the roadway in which plaintiff slipped and fell on ice, failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, since the evidence it submitted raises genuine issues of fact about whether it created the dangerous condition … . For example, its principal, who is also the principal of codefendant Style Management Co., Inc. (Style), the taxi company housed at the building owned by 514 West, admitted that there is a hose attached to the building, which the independent contractors who work for the taxi company would use to wash the cars. It is water from this hose, which pooled in the street and then froze, that plaintiff allegedly slipped on. “It is . . . a general rule that an abutting owner is liable if, by artificial means . . . water from the property is permitted to flow onto the public sidewalk where it freezes”… . 514 West asserts that Style operated the hose, not it, thus absolving it of liability. However, 514 West fails to establish that it is an out-of-possession landlord; indeed, given the very close connection between 514 West and Style, which, again, have the same principal, it is not possible on this record to determine, as a matter of law, that the former is without liability as a landowner. Malik v Style Mgt. Co. Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00372, First Dept 1-22-19

 

​

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY HAD PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK AND RAILING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL INTO A GORGE, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff’s decedent fell from a paved trail into a gorge. There were questions of fact about whether the city had prior written notice of the broken sidewalk and railing:

… [P]laintiff produced a police investigation report concluding that decedent had fallen along a part of the trail with multiple defects, including broken pavement, a “bent/unsecured hand railing . . . and huge gap spaces in sidewalk edge adjacent to [the] cliff side edge.” Plaintiff also demonstrated that, by the time of the fall, the Department of Public Works had received numerous written complaints about the condition of the trail. General complaints and the subsequent efforts of department personnel to evaluate the condition of the trail did not “obviate the need for prior written notice” of the particular defects implicated in decedent’s fall … . That said, one of the written complaints was a January 2012 email forwarded to an Assistant Superintendent of Public Works that was, according to his testimony, “probably” shared with the Superintendent of Public Works, and attached to the email is a map with photographs that appear to reference the defects in the area where decedent fell. Van Wageningen v City of Ithaca, 2019 NY Slip Op 00343, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, , ,

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE VILLAGE STEMMING FROM A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IN THE WATER SUPPLY PROPERLY GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE VILLAGE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly granted petitioners’ application to file late notices of claim against the village stemming from a hazardous substance, PFOA, in the municipal water supply. Although petitioners did not have an adequate excuse for the delay, respondents had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim and were not prejudiced by the the delay:

… [I]t is evident that respondent was well aware of the PFOA contamination in its municipal water system, the likelihood of increased PFOA levels in the blood of its residents as a result of exposure to PFOA and the potential negative health consequences as a result thereof. On the record before us, therefore, respondent cannot plausibly claim that it had only a “general awareness” of the presence of PFOA in its municipal water system. Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court properly found that respondent had actual notice of all the essential facts underlying petitioners’ claims … . …

Further, there has been no demonstration of substantial prejudice to respondent as a result of petitioners’ delay in seeking to file late notices of claim … . Respondent has been aware of the subject PFOA contamination since at least October 2014, it was apprised of the potential negative health risks to its residents from PFOA exposure and, as a result of the blood testing program commenced by DOH, it learned of the elevated levels of PFOA in its residents — despite its efforts to downplay said results. Moreover, respondent alleges that it has located the source of the PFOA contamination and petitioners, as residents of respondent, remain available for any further investigation into whether respondent’s conduct was the proximate cause of their alleged injuries. In turn, other than the passage of time, respondent has offered no particularized evidence in opposition to establish that it suffered substantial prejudice … . Matter of Holbrook v Village of Hoosick Falls, 2019 NY Slip Op 00342, Third Dept 1-17-19

,

DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO CONTROL HIS COLLEGE-AGE GRANDSON IN THIS ROAD RAGE INCIDENT, THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, HOWEVER THE AIDING-AND-ABETTING ASSAULT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant Mancuso’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence cause of action was properly granted, but the motion for summary judgment on the aiding-and-abetting-assault cause of action should not have been granted. The action stemmed from a road rage incident. Defendant Mancuso was driving and his college-age grandson, Vaccaro, was a passenger. The grandson got out of the car and hit plaintiff in the face:

Mancuso established, prima facie, that he did not owe a duty to the plaintiff by virtue of the relationship Mancuso had with Vaccaro. The fact that Mancuso could have exercised control over Vaccaro, his college-aged grandson, did not create a duty to do so … . In addition, the mere fact that Vaccaro was a passenger in Mancuso’s vehicle did not create a duty on the part of Mancuso to control Vaccaro’s conduct … . …

To be liable for an assault under an aiding and abetting theory, a defendant must have committed some overt act, either by words or conduct, in furtherance of the assault … . Here, Mancuso established, prima facie, that he did not commit an overt act in furtherance of Vaccaro’s assault on the plaintiff … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Mancuso’s actions preceding the assault constituted an overt act in furtherance of the assault … . McKiernan v Vaccaro, 2019 NY Slip Op 00267, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PARKING LOT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ATHLETIC CLUB, NOT A LEASE, THEREFORE THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE ATHLETIC CLUB TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPOSED CERTAIN MAINTENANCE DUTIES ON THE CITY AS WELL, THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city did not demonstrate that it had relinquished control over the parking lot where plaintiff allegedly fell into an access pit. The access pit was exposed because a snow removal contractor pushed the cover off when plowing snow. The city had a license agreement with an athletic club, Fitmar, which required Fitmar to maintain the parking lot. Fitmar had hired the snow removal contractor. The city argued it was an out of possession landlord and the parking lot was solely Fitmar’s responsibility. The Second Department held that the parking lot was subject to a license agreement, not a lease, and therefore the out of possession landlord doctrine did not apply. The Second Department went on to find that the terms of the license agreement did not demonstrate as a matter of law that the city had relinquished control over the maintenance of the parking lot:

… [T]he license agreement granted Fitmar a license to use the premises, and not a leasehold interest … . Thus, the standard applied to out-of-possession landlords is inapplicable here … . Rather, the City, “as landowner, remains in presumptive control over its property and subject to the attendant obligations of ownership until it is found that control was relinquished” … .

The City failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that it relinquished control of the premises such that it owed no duty to the plaintiff to remedy the allegedly defective condition. While the license agreement assigned responsibility for maintenance of the premises, and specifically of the parking lot, to Fitmar, it vested the City with ultimate approval authority over Fitmar’s operating procedures. The City had unfettered access to the premises and could sponsor or promote its own special events at the premises. The agreement required a yearly inspection of the premises by the City to determine the extent of any repairs to be performed by Fitmar, and the City was permitted to inspect the premises at any time and direct Fitmar to undertake repairs. The City could maintain field personnel at the premises to observe the means and methods of anticipated construction work by Fitmar, and also reserved the right for the City to perform construction or maintenance work at the premises at any time. Fitmar’s former general manager testified at his deposition that the City conducted regular inspections of the premises, and that representatives of the Parks Department would often show up unannounced to conduct inspections. Agbosasa v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00250, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BROUGHT BY A STUDENT WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WHO LEFT SCHOOL AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence and negligent supervision, hiring, training and retention causes of action against the school district should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff is a special needs student who had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The infant plaintiff left school, went home and attempted suicide. The school district argued plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the IDEA. The Second Department held that the negligence causes of action were not subject to the administrative requirements of the IDEA:

“An IEP is developed jointly by a school official, the child’s teacher and parents, and, where appropriate, the child. It details the special needs of a disabled child and the services which are to be provided to serve the individual needs of that child” … . Because parents and school officials sometimes cannot agree on such issues, the IDEA establishes formal administrative procedures for resolving disputes… . If a parent is dissatisfied with the outcome after having exhausted the IDEA’s administrative remedies, the parent may then seek judicial review by filing a civil action in state or federal court… . The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not limited to actions brought explicitly pursuant to the IDEA. 20 USC § 1415(l) states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter.”

Here, the complaint alleges only common-law causes of action to recover damages for, inter alia, negligence, negligent supervision, hiring, training, and retention, and loss of consortium. Thus, the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative remedies before commencing the instant action … . Matter of P.S. v Pleasantville Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00282, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THE WETNESS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED AND FELL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR, THEREFORE THE LANDLORD HAD NEITHER ACTUAL NOR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff’s deposition testimony demonstrated that the wetness on the stairs could not have been present for more than an hour. Therefore the defendant landlord had neither actual nor constructive notice of the condition and the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted:

The building superintendent testified that he had no knowledge of the condition and received no complaints about it on the day of the accident. On the issue of constructive notice, although he described a reasonable cleaning and inspection routine… , there was no evidence when the stairs were last inspected or cleaned before plaintiff’s accident so as to satisfy defendant’s burden … .

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony offered in support of defendant’s motion, however, established that the water condition did not exist for a sufficient period of time to discover and remedy the problem … . Thus, there was neither actual nor constructive notice of the wetness. Although plaintiff testified that she had complained about a wet condition on the stairs on three occasions between 2009 and 2013, she presented no evidence of a recurring condition unaddressed by defendants. Plaintiff also testified that she had no reason to believe that the stair was wet when she left her apartment at 5 p.m. and that she slipped on the stairs when she returned, less than an hour later. Thus, any wet condition was present for less than an hour, and might have been there only minutes or seconds before plaintiff slipped on it …. Plaintiff failed to raise any issue of fact requiring a trial.

Plaintiff’s argument that the absence of a handrail on both sides of the staircase raises an issue of fact as to defendants’ negligence is speculative, as there is no evidence that the absence of a handrail played any role in her accident … . Perez v River Park Bronx Apts., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00196, First Dept 1-10-19

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP (ATLANTIC) WAS ADDED AS A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN BASED SOLELY ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR ITS EMPLOYEE (DEBRADY) WHO HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED, ATLANTIC’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CEASED WHEN DEBRADY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED, ATLANTIC COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NEVER A PARTY (CANTALUPO), ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SUED A JOHN DOE, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SUBSTITUTE CANTALUPO FOR THE JOHN DOE, ATLANTIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine did not allow plaintiff in this medical malpractice action to sue an anesthesiology group (Atanitic) as a defendant after the statute of limitations had been expired. Atlantic had been added as a defendant after the statute ran when it was discovered that a defendant anesthesiolgist, DeBrady, worked for Atlantic at the time the procedure was performed on plaintiff. DeBrady’s motion for summary judgment was not opposed and was granted. But Supreme Court held that Atlantic could remain a defendant because of the potential liability of another employee of Atlantic, non-party Cantalupo. The Second Department held that Atlantic’s liability was based solely upon respondeat superior as the employer of DeBrady, who was no longer a defendant. The court noted that, although the complaint named a “John Doe, MD,” Cantalupo could not be substituted as a party because plaintiff never moved to substitute Cantalupo and the requirements of CPLR 1024 were not met:

In order for a cause of action asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date a claim was asserted against another defendant, the plaintiff must establish that “(1) the [cause of action] arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well (… see CPLR 203[b]). In malpractice actions, such as this one, “the defendants are considered united in interest when one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other”… . The second prong of the relation-back doctrine requires unity of interest with a party in the action … .

Since Atlantic was made a party to the action after the expiration of the statute of limitations based solely on its unity of interest with DeBrady, who was timely served, Atlantic’s liability in the instant action cannot be predicated upon vicarious liability for the alleged negligent acts of other employees of Atlantic who are not parties to this action, including nonparty Cantalupo. Accordingly, Atlantic demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, upon dismissal of the action as against DeBrady … . Ferrara v Jerome Zisfein, 2019 NY Slip Op 00096, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE OF TWO NON-PARTY DOCTORS WHO ALSO TREATED PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMERGENCY MEDICINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice case in the interest of justice. The defendants (Kirschen, Roberts and Winthrop) were involved in emergency treatment of the plaintiff for back pain. Subsequently surgery was performed by two additional (non-party) doctors (Obedian and Sonstein) to deal with an abscess on plaintiff’s spine. At trial the defendants were not allowed to cross-examine plaintiff’s experts about the possible negligence of the surgeons, which was deemed reversible error. The Second Department further held plaintiff’s experts should not have been allowed to testify as experts in emergency medicine because no specialized knowledge of emergency medicine was demonstrated:

” A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise'”… . In considering such a motion, “[t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision'” … . …

… [T]the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries were capable of any reasonable or practicable division of allocation among Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop, and Obedian and Sonstein … . Thus, if, as Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop propose, a jury were to find that Obedian and Sonstein departed from accepted medical practice and that this departure was a substantial factor in depriving the plaintiff of a substantial chance for an improved outcome, Obedian and Sonstein could be found at fault together with Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop … . As a result, any evidence as to the culpability of Obedian and Sonstein was relevant under CPLR 1601(1) … . The court’s error in precluding Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop from cross-examining two of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses on this issue deprived Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop of “substantial justice” … . Daniele v Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is.. 2019 NY Slip Op 00093, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

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