You are here: / Negligence
,

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE COLLISION; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Defendant had raised a nonnegligent explanation for the collision:

In this action arising from a vehicle collision, plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as to liability. In his sworn affidavit, he averred that he was slowing down on the expressway due to upcoming traffic congestion when his vehicle was hit in the rear by a tractor trailer truck driven by defendant Scott Martin. “It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle and imposes a duty on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation” for the collision … .

However, defendants raised an issue of fact in opposition by submitting Martin’s affidavit stating that plaintiff pulled directly in front of him from the nearby on-ramp, during inclement weather, in a manner that Martin described as “sudden.” This statement in Martin’s affidavit presented a nonnegligent explanation for the collision, raising an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent for swerving in front of Martin or cutting him off … . Madera v Charles Hukrston Truck, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00788, Frist Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: Here is a rare example of a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision which was deemed sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW ARGUMENT RAISED FIRST IN REPLY; THE HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT OVER THE PARKING LOT, NOT THE OWNER OF THE PARKING LOT, IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE LOT FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, NOTWITHSTANDING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EASEMENT HOLDER AND THE OWNER IN WHICH THE OWNER AGREED TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined (1) Supreme Court should not have considered a new argument raised for the first time in reply, and (2) defendant, as the holder of an easement over the parking lot, was primarily responsible for keeping the lot free of ice and snow, notwithstanding the terms of a “parking agreement” between defendant and the owner of the lot in which the owner agreed to remove ice and snow from the lot:

… [T]he court improperly granted the motion based on an argument advanced for the first time in reply [i.e., the existence of the “parking agreement”]. The function of reply papers is “to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds [or evidence] for the motion” … . * * *

We agree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the duty of an easement holder “is the same as that owed by a landowner” and is nondelegable (Sutera v Go Jokir, Inc., 86 F3d 298, 308 [2d Cir 1996] …). We therefore conclude that defendant’s “duty to exercise reasonable care toward third parties making use of the parking lot subject to the easement, once established, is not abrogated by a covenant on the part of the servient owner[, i.e., the nonparty owner of 875 East Main Street,] to clear ice and snow from the lot. The general rule that a servient owner may assume duties of maintenance, while undoubtedly relevant as between dominant and servient owners, does not apply when the rights of injured third parties are implicated,” as in the case here … . The fact that the nonparty owner of 875 East Main Street may also have had a duty to maintain the parking lot does not serve to insulate defendant from liability to plaintiff. Otero v Rochester Broadway Theatre League, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: An argument based on new evidence first presented in reply should not have been considered by the court.​

Practice Point: Here the holder of the easement over the parking lot, as opposed to the owner of the parking lot, was primarily responsible for the removal of ice and snow.

 

 

, , , ,

IT WAS ALLEGED A TEACHER SEXUALLY ABUSED PLAINTIFF STUDENT ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK FOR THREE YEARS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, SOMETIMES FOLLOWED BY ABUSE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act case should not have been granted. It was alleged plaintiff-student was sexually abused by a teacher once or twice a week for three years. Based on the frequency of the alleged abuse, the school did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the abuse and properly supervised the teacher. Because abuse which allegedly occurred off the school premises was preceded by abuse on school grounds, the off-premises-abuse causes of action should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred once or twice per week over the course of three school years in the same closet while the teacher left the other students in his class unattended, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse … . Additionally, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether their supervision of the teacher was negligent … .

Further, although the plaintiff alleged acts of sexual abuse that occurred outside of school premises and school hours, the defendants’ submissions showed that those alleged acts were preceded by instances when the plaintiff allegedly was sexually abused by the teacher during school hours on a regular basis. Sallustio v Southern Westchester Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 2025 NY Slip Op 00690, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise summary of the elements of the causes of action where a teacher is accused of frequently sexually abusing a student both on and off school grounds.

 

,

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON “BLACK ICE” DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THE ICE WAS NOT VISIBLE; THIS SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there was a question of fact whether the “black ice” in the parking lot was visible such that defendant had constructive notice of its presence:

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [a] defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . In moving for summary judgment, defendants argued, and the court agreed, that they did not have constructive notice inasmuch as plaintiff slipped on black ice and thus the icy condition was not visible and apparent. Although plaintiff allegedly slipped on black ice, “that fact alone does not establish as a matter of law that the ice was not visible and apparent” … . Moreover, the fact that plaintiff did not see the ice before she fell is not dispositive of whether the condition was visible and apparent … . Here, defendants submitted excerpts from plaintiff’s deposition where she described the ice, as she observed it after she fell, as “[a] wide circle” and “a big patch” that “was the same color as the ground” and not shiny. We conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the icy condition was not visible and apparent … . Doyle v Tops Mkts., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00577, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: Black ice is not invisible as a matter of law.​

 

, ,

A POLICE OFFICER DIRECTING TRAFFIC IS PERFORMING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION; THE OFFICER AND THE CITY ARE THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM LIABLITY FOR A RELATED ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city defendants and defendant police officer (McMillan) were entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. It was alleged that McMillan negligently directed the vehicle which struck plaintiff to enter the intersection. Because directing traffic is a governmental function requiring the exercise of discretion, the governmental function immunity doctrine controls:

… [T]he City defendants and McMillan established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence cause of action insofar as asserted against them irrespective of the conflicting evidence as to whether McMillan directed the driver of the vehicle into the intersection. Under the facts as alleged, if McMillan directed the driver of the vehicle into the intersection, McMillan’s action was discretionary and he and the City defendants are thus immune from liability under governmental function immunity … . If, on the other hand, McMillan was standing on the side of the road not directing any traffic, there was no negligent act and no basis for liability for him or the City defendants … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Hershkovitz v Brown, 2025 NY Slip Op 00436, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: A police officer directing traffic is performing a governmental function requiring the exercise of discretion. The officer and the city are therefore immune from liability for a related traffic accident.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A SIDEWALK DEFECT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, HERE A CURB CUT FOR A DRIVEWAY, A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined defendant property owner was not liable for any sidewalk defects created by the prior owner’s special use (a driveway) because defendant did not continue with that special use:

… [T]he defendants established, prima facie, that the property was a one-family residence that was owner occupied, and used exclusively for residential purposes. Therefore, pursuant to section 7-210(b) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the defendants established, prima facie, that they were not liable for dangerous conditions on the sidewalk abutting the property, which they did not affirmatively create, voluntarily but negligently repair, or create through a special use of the sidewalk … . The defendants also met their burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that they did not affirmatively create, voluntarily but negligently repair, or create through a special use of the sidewalk, the alleged hole in curb cut which caused the plaintiff to fall.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Even assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff provided competent evidence that a prior owner of the property made a special use of the sidewalk as a driveway, the defendants had no obligation to repair damage to the sidewalk because they did not continue to derive any special benefit from the use of the sidewalk after they purchased the property … . Byrams v Hamilton, 2025 NY Slip Op 00419, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: In order for a property owner to be liable for a sidewalk defect created by a prior owner’s special use, the current owner must have continued that special use, not the case here.

 

, , ,

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT PROPERLY EVALUATED THE TEACHER’S BACKGROUND BEFORE HIRING HER AND WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the defendant school district did not demonstrate it took adequate measures to the evaluate the teacher’s background and did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff student:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the School District was not negligent with respect to the hiring of the teacher. The defendants’ submissions in support of their motion failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the School District took appropriate measures to evaluate the teacher’s employment and fitness at the time she was hired … .

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the School District lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s abusive propensities and conduct … . In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred between 50 and 100 times over the course of two school years, inter alia, in a classroom and the school parking lot during school hours, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the School District should have known of the abuse … . The defendants similarly failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the School District’s supervision of both the teacher and the plaintiff was not negligent given that, among other things, the teacher was on “probationary” status during the relevant period, some of the incidences occurred while the plaintiff was alone with the teacher in her classroom, the teacher’s personnel file contains only a single evaluation from the school during the relevant period, and multiple former students testified at their respective depositions that the teacher’s inappropriate relationship with the plaintiff was readily apparent … . Brauner v Locust Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 00418, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here in this Child Victims Act case the school district did not demonstrate it properly evaluated the teacher’s background before hiring her and did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the teachers’ alleged abuse of plaintiff student which allegedly occurred up to 100 times in a classroom and the school parking lot.

 

, ,

THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality proved it did not have written notice of the road defect and plaintiff’s attempt to raise for the first time an exception to the written notice requirement in response to the summary judgment motion was improper:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she drove her vehicle over an uncovered manhole … .

“A municipality that has enacted a prior written notification law may avoid liability for a defect or hazardous condition that falls within the scope of the law if it can establish that it has not been notified in writing of the existence of the defect or hazard at a specific location” … . “Such [prior written] notice is obviated where the plaintiff demonstrates that the municipality ‘created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence’ or that a ‘special use’ conferred a benefit on the municipality” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not dispute that the defendants established, prima facie, that they had no prior written notice of the alleged roadway defect. In opposition, the plaintiff instead argued that the special use exception applied. The plaintiff, however, failed to allege that exception in either the notice of claim or the complaint … . Therefore, that new theory of liability was improperly raised in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . Anderson v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff raised an exception to the written-notice prerequisite to municipal liability for road defects for the first time in response to the municipality’s motion for summary judgment. That is too late. The exception should be raised in the notice of claim and/or the complaint.

 

,

EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA BELOW THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD BEEN RECENTLY MOPPED, TOGETHER WITH TESTIMONY THAT THE STAIRS WERE WET, WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence that the stairs had recently been mopped and were wet when plaintiff slipped and fell was sufficient to warrant summary judgment:

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted a transcript of the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, wherein she noted that after she fell, her pants and the bottom of her shirt became wet. The plaintiffs also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of their son, who testified that when he came to the lobby to help his mother, the floor and the stairs were wet and the stairs felt slippery under his feet. That testimony, along with the surveillance video [of the area below the stairs being mopped], established the plaintiffs’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the defendant. In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Tkachuk v D&J Realty of N.Y., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00472, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Video evidence showing the area below the stairs being mopped, together with testimony the stairs were wet, warranted the award of summary judgment to the plaintiffs.

 

,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO CLEAR ICE AND SNOW AND CERTAIN BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL; THE “STORM IN PROGRESS” RULE ONLY NEGATED THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO CLEAR THE ICE AND SNOW; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS WERE INAPPLICABLE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the “storm in progress” applied to this slip and fall because it was snowing at the time, summary judgment should not have been awarded to defendants. In addition to alleging the negligent failure to clear ice and snow, the complaint alleged the ramp where plaintiff fell violated certain provision of the NYC Building Code. The defendants did not demonstrate the code did not apply. Because there can be more than one proximate cause  the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment:

… “[T]here can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . Although there is no disagreement that the snow and ice from the storm was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall, Avenue L and the Sesame defendants each failed to establish, prima facie, that the provisions of the 1968, 2008, and 2014 New York City Building Codes relied upon by the plaintiff were inapplicable and that an alleged violation of those provisions did not proximately cause the plaintiff to fall … . Wechsler v Ave. L., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00347, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff conceded it was snowing when she slipped and fell, triggering the “storm in progress” rule which let defendants off the hook for any failure to clear ice and snow. But the plaintiff also alleged certain building code violations caused her fall. The defendants did not demonstrate the code was inapplicable so they were not entitled to summary judgment. There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall.

 

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