You are here: / Negligence
,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DAMAGES VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND THE INJURY TO BE PERMANENT BUT DID NOT AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING TOO LOW, MAY HAVE BEEN AN IMPERMISSIBLE COMPROMISE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and granting a new trial, determined the jury’s damages verdict in this rear-end collision, traffic accident case should have been granted. The jury found that plaintiff suffered a permanent injury but did not award plaintiff with damages for future pain and suffering. The Second Department further determined the $12,500 verdict for past pain and suffering was too low:

A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence only if the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence… . Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering, as the verdict with respect to those damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The jury’s determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering was inconsistent with the jury’s finding that his injuries were permanent in nature and were proximately caused by the accident … . Furthermore, whereas the jury was presented with conflicting evidence and theories as to the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the jury’s award for past pain and suffering was inexplicably low, it appears that the verdict with respect to damages for past pain and suffering may have been the result of an impermissible compromise … . Avissato v McDaniel, 2019 NY Slip Op 00084, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO WAS DELIVERING MEALS ON WHEELS IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE WAS ASSAULTED, ALLEGED THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED THE BUILDING THROUGH A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ENTRANCE, THE LANDLORD’S DUTY TO PROTECT TENANTS EXTENDS TO GUESTS OF TENANTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this third-party assault case, determined the personal injury and wrongful death action against the landlord should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was delivering “meals on wheels” in the building when he was assaulted, allegedly by an intruder who allegedly entered the building through a negligently maintained entrance:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm,’ including a third party’s foreseeable criminal conduct” … . This duty extends to the guests of a tenant … . A tenant or guest may recover damages, however, only on a showing that the landlord’s negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the injury… . “In premises security cases particularly, the necessary causal link between a landlord’s culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant’s injuries resulting from a criminal attack in the building can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant, or someone allowed into the building by another tenant, plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment of a matter of law by presenting evidence that the lock on the only entrance to 341 Dumont Avenue was operable on the day of the incident … . In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the decedent’s assailant was an intruder who entered the building through a negligently maintained entrance … . Aminova v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00083, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, NOT THE FIRE DISTRICT WHICH WAS THE PROPER PARTY, PLAINTIFF NEVER SERVED A NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE DISTRICT, THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action against the Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Company was properly dismissed and the proper party, the Coeymans Hollow Fire District #3, could not be sued because it was never served with a notice of claim. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when members of the Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Company evacuated her from her house during a fire call:

A volunteer fire company, such as defendant, “shall be under the control of the . . . fire district . . . having, by law, control over the prevention or extinguishment of fires therein” (N-PCL 1402 [e] [1]). Indeed, the Fire District was responsible for preventing and extinguishing fires within its jurisdiction and trained and supervised defendant’s members. Furthermore, when defendant’s members responded to the fire at [plaintiff’s] house, they acted under the direction of the Chief of the Fire District. Because defendant and the Fire District are separate entities and defendant does not exert control over its members, defendant cannot be held liable for the alleged negligence of its members … . …

We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant and the Fire District are so inextricably intertwined that timely service of the notice of claim upon defendant equates to timely service upon the Fire District. Furthermore, although defendant conducted an examination of [plaintiff] under General Municipal Law § 50-h, equitable estoppel does not preclude any claim that Roberts failed to serve the notice of claim upon the proper party … . We also note that, even though defendant was not obligated to inform Roberts that she failed to name the proper party … , defendant did so as an affirmative defense in its answer.

Plaintiff additionally contends that General Municipal Law § 50-e (3) (c) permits deeming the notice of claim served upon defendant as being timely served upon the Fire District. We disagree. This savings provision is “limited in scope to defects in the manner of serving the notice of claim on the correct public entity” … . That said, plaintiff fails to identify, nor does the record disclose, any infirmities in the service of the notice of claim. More critically, before any defects in service can be overlooked, service on the proper party must be accomplished in the first instance … . Roberts v Coeymans Hollow Volunteer Fire Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 00006, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

,

THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFECTS IN THE HANDRAIL OR THE STAIR RISER HEIGHTS CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OVER $500,000 PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT WAS VACATED AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the plaintiff’s jury verdict (over $500,000) in this stairway slip and fall case and ordered a new trial, finding that plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify about defects in the handrail because the trial evidence did not allege the handrail was a proximate cause of the fall. The First Department further held, without explanation, that the riser heights should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability:

… [D]efendants’ argument that there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to charge the jury on theories that either riser heights or the handrail were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall, has merit… . Although plaintiff testified that it was her usual habit to hold a handrail while descending stairs, her testimony was equivocal on whether she held the handrail that day. Further, she testified that she did not attempt to reach for a handrail at the time of her fall, because the accident happened too fast. Nor did she provide any testimony connecting the handrail to her optical illusion theory. Thus, plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify that the handrail was a contributing cause of plaintiff’s fall, and the jury should not have been charged on the question whether the handrail was too short. Moreover, while the final step’s size may have helped contribute to plaintiff’s claim of optical illusion, the riser heights in the staircase should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability.

The trial court’s response to a jury note asking whether the building was “up to code” was incorrect in light of the prior summary judgment order. Rather than responding that there was no evidence that the code was either violated or complied with, the jury should have been informed that the building code was not applicable to the staircase. Landau v Balbona Rest. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00051, First Dept 1-3-19

EXPERT OPINION

, ,

THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY OF LIABILITY, AFTER THE ACTION WAS STARTED PLAINTIFF LEARNED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS A PASSENGER WAS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO TRANSPORT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CAR TO WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine (CPLR 203(f)) allowed plaintiff, Polanco, to serve a supplemental summons and complaint against the employer of Elias-Tejada, the driver of the car in which plaintiff’s decedent was a passenger. The Elias-Tejada car stalled on a bridge and was struck from behind. Plaintiff (Polanco) did not learn until after the action was started that Elias-Tejada was paid by his employer, Fairway, to transport the other occupants of his car, all Fairway employees, to work. Plaintiff (Polanco) sought to add Fairway as a defendant under a respondeat superior theory and the First Department held he could do so:

The claims that Polanco seeks to assert against Fairway arise out of the same occurrence as alleged in the complaint against Elias-Tejada [and the other two defendant drivers]. … [W]e find that Polanco also satisfied the second condition, because under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee committed while the employee is acting in the scope of his or her employment … . Based on Elias-Tejada’s employer/employee relationship with Fairway, they are united in interest because a judgment against one of them will similarly affect the other … . … [T]he Fairway defendants can, therefore, be charged as having notice of Polanco’s potential claims against them, based upon the claims asserted against Elias-Tejada in the original summons and complaint … . …

… Only later, after depositions were held, including those of a key Fairway employee and Elias-Tejada, did [plaintiff] learn that Fairway compensated Elias-Tejada for hosting the car pool and that this travel arrangement was condoned, if not actually implemented and encouraged, by Fairway’s human resources department because Fairway reimbursed him for tolls and mileage. Ramirez v Elias-Tejada, 2019 NY Slip Op 00021, First Dept  1-3-19

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , , , ,

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD AND JUDICIARY LAW 487 ALLEGATIONS STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT LAW FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS DUPLICATED THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that plaintiff’s legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action against the law firm which represented her in divorce proceedings should have been dismissed. The opinion is fact-specific. The legal issues mentioned include: the breach of fiduciary duty allegations were identical to the legal malpractice allegations and therefore required the “but for” element of legal malpractice (which was missing), and the fraud and Judiciary Law 487 claims were identical and duplicated the legal malpractice allegations, requiring dismissal. Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP,  2018 NY Slip Op 09030, First Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

THERE WAS NO PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER A SERIOUS INJURY WAS NECESSARILY BASED ON THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY, VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case was properly granted. Plaintiff had been granted summary judgment on liability and proceeded to trial on damages. Defendants’ expert, McGowan, purported to analyze the forces involved in the collision and opined that the impact could not have caused plaintiff’s injuries. The jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury:”

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages… . “An expert’s opinion must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness'”… . Here, a proper foundation was lacking for the admission of McGowan’s opinion … . Among other things, McGowan failed to calculate the force exerted by all four vehicles, the crash test he utilized to determine the delta-v differed in several significant respects from the instant accident, and he reviewed simulations in which the weight of the dummies was not similar to that of the plaintiff. Imran v R. Barany Monuments, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08921, Second Dept 12-26-18

DEFENDANT BAR NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT RESULTING FROM AN ALTERCATION ON A PUBLIC ROAD IN FRONT OF THE BAR, BAR EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE THE ALTERCATION OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the defendant bar’s motion for summary judgment in this third party assault case, determined that the owner of the bar was not liable to plaintiff’s decedent who died of injuries from an altercation which occurred on the public road in front of the bar:

Landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property … . In particular, they have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control… . Under this rationale, courts have recognized that a landowner may have responsibility for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest … . However, it is “uniformly acknowledged that liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on defendant’s property, or in an area under defendant’s control, where defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest” … . Moreover, a landowner is not an insurer of a visitor’s safety, and has no duty to protect visitors against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults… .

Here, the bar defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that the altercation was a sudden and unforeseeable event, which occurred on a public roadway, outside of their premises and control … . Covelli v Silver Fist, Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 08914, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FRONTMOST DRIVER NEGLIGENTLY BROUGHT HER CAR TO A COMPLETE STOP IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, FRONTMOST DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the transit authority’s and the frontmost driver’s (Conway’s) motions for summary judgment should not have been granted in this rear-end collision case. There was evidence the bus pulled into traffic suddenly without a turn signal, and there was evidence Conway negligently brought her car to a complete stop:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a non-negligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . “However, not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver” … . “[W]here the frontmost driver also operates [their] vehicle in a negligent manner, the issue of comparative negligence is for a jury to decide”  … . …

Gill [the driver behind Conway] testified at his deposition that the bus was in the right lane when the accident occurred and that, although he could not be sure, he did not recall the bus ever entering the left lane. Additionally, in contrast to Conroy’s testimony that she attempted to gradually bring her vehicle to a stop, Gill testified that Conroy apparently panicked and slammed on her brakes when the bus pulled away from the curb. Thus, Gill’s deposition testimony raised triable issues of fact as to whether the bus entered the left lane of traffic and whether Conroy negligently brought her vehicle to a complete stop … . Conroy v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 08913, Second Dept 12-26-18

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FALL FROM BED WAS THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE TO TAKE ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FALLING AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FALL EXACERBATED THE PROGRESSION OF PLAINTIFF’S INTERCRANIAL HEMORRHAGE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs raised a question of fact about whether defendants in this medical malpractice case deviated for accepted standards of care. Plaintiff Salgado, who was suffering from an intercranial hemorrhage, fell out of bed, which may have exacerbated the progression of the hemorrhage. There was a question of fact whether proper precautions to prevent a fall were taken, given that Salgado had no right hand grip or right arm or leg movement:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants departed from accepted standards of practice by failing to prevent Salgado from falling out of bed and whether his injuries were exacerbated by his fall. More particularly, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmation of an expert who opined that the monitoring and precautions against falls implemented by the hospital in its Medical Intensive Care Unit departed from accepted standards of practice because, given the medical condition noted in Salgado’s chart, i.e., “calm” and “lethargic” with no right hand grip or right arm or leg movement early the same day, Salgado’s fall could not have occurred unless restraints were improperly applied. Furthermore, with respect to causation, the plaintiffs’ expert opined that the increase in the size of Salgado’s intercranial hemorrhage from the morning of the fall, accompanied by the new onset of midline shift, was too extensive and rapid in onset to be due solely to the natural progression of Salgado’s original hemorrhage. Salgado v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08967, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

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