You are here: / Negligence
, , , , ,

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

 

,

THE PARTY WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY ENTERING THE INTERSECTION WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DRIVER MAKING A LEFT TURN, ALLEGATIONS THE PARTY WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS SPEEDING DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ACCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF SPEEDING WAS NOT INVOLVED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined that the driver who had the right of way entering an intersection. Aly, was entitled to summary judgment against the driver, Varela, who made a left turn into Aly’s path. The deposition testimony that Aly was speeding did not raise an issue of fact because there was no evidence Aly could have avoided the accident if traveling at the speed limit. In an apparent reference to the emergency doctrine the court noted that Aly had only seconds to react and therefore could not be deemed comparatively negligent:

The moving [ALY] defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them by submitting, among other things, the deposition transcripts of the parties, as well as video surveillance footage of the accident, which demonstrated that the sole proximate cause of the accident was Varela’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 in making a left turn into the path of the oncoming Aly vehicle without yielding the right-of-way… . As the driver with the right-of-way, Aly was entitled to anticipate that Varela would obey the traffic laws which required him to yield … . ” Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision'” … . Here, the moving defendants established that Aly had only seconds to react to the Varela vehicle, which failed to yield.

In opposition, the plaintiffs and the Varela defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any negligence on the part of Aly was a substantial factor in the happening of the accident. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs’ respective deposition testimony that Aly was speeding is “inconsequential inasmuch as the [plaintiffs] did not raise a triable issue as to whether [Aly] could have avoided the accident even if she had been traveling at or below the posted speed limit” … . Rohn v Aly, 2018 NY Slip Op 08966, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, ,

EXPERTS MAY NOT RELY ON DISPUTED FACTS IN RENDERING AN OPINION IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, noted that experts cannot rely on disputed facts when rendering an opinion:

Although defendants submitted affidavits from medical experts opining that the individual defendants did not deviate from the standard of care and that any alleged deviation was not a proximate cause of the postsurgery medical complications, those experts relied solely on the symptoms as documented in the medical records of [two of the defendants]. … [T]hose symptoms are vastly different from the symptoms allegedly reported to the remaining defendants and demonstrated by plaintiff before the surgery. It is well settled that experts may not rely upon disputed facts when rendering an opinion … . Moreover, we note that defendants’ experts failed to address plaintiff’s contention that, had he been timely diagnosed, he would not have been required to undergo the surgery in the first place. … “By ignoring the [allegation that the remaining defendants’ malpractice caused plaintiff to undergo the very surgery that caused the brain bleed], defendant[s’] expert[s] failed to tender[ ] sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact’ . . . as to proximate causation and, as a result, [the remaining] defendant[s] [were] not entitled to summary judgment” with respect to those parts of their respective motions and cross motions … . Kubera v Bartholomew, 2018 NY Slip Op 08784, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

,

ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE CAR THAT WAS NOT SLOWING DOWN AS IT APPROACHED THE INTERSECTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have granted the Sile defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Matthew Sile had the right of way when his truck was broadsided by a car (driven by Buck) which failed to stop an the intersection. The majority held that the papers submitted by the Sile defendants raised an issue of fact whether Matthew Sile should have seen the Buck car which was not slowing down as it approached the intersection:

Although plaintiffs do not dispute that Buck was negligent in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law or that Matthew had the right-of-way as he proceeded straight through the intersection, it is well settled that ” there may be more than one proximate cause of [a collision]’ “… . Thus, in their motions, the Sile defendants had the initial burden of establishing as a matter of law either that Matthew was not negligent or that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the accident… . We conclude in both appeals that the Sile defendants failed to meet that burden … .

Although “a driver who has the right[-]of[-]way is entitled to anticipate that [the drivers of] other vehicles will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield” … , that driver nevertheless has a “duty to exercise reasonable care in proceeding through [an] intersection” … , and “cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection”… . Here, by their own submissions, the Sile defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether Matthew met his “duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” … . Gilkerson v Buck, 2018 NY Slip Op 08782, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED BY ANOTHER STUDENT ON A PRIVATE BUS TAKING THE CHILD HOME FROM SCHOOL, CERTAIN NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING AND TRAINING CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, TWO DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL WHEN THE ABUSE OCCURRED ON THE BUS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined certain negligence causes of action against the school properly survived a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Infant plaintiff, a special needs student, was allegedly sexually abused by another student on a private bus which provided transportation from the school under a contract with the city. All the justices agreed that the negligent hiring, supervision and training causes of action were properly dismissed because the relevant employees were alleged to have been acting within the scope of their employment, rendering the employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The dissenters argued that the child was no longer in the custody of the school when the child was on the private bus:

From the Dissent: “[A] school has a duty of care while children are in its physical custody or orbit of authority” (Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 87 NY2d 370, 378 [1995]), which generally “does not extend beyond school premises”… . A school continues to have a duty of care to a child released from its physical custody or orbit of authority only under certain narrow circumstances, specifically, where the school “releases a child without further supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating” (Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. Sch. Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 672 [1999], rearg denied 93 NY2d 1042 [1999]… ).

In determining that the sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth causes of action adequately set forth a cognizable theory of negligence, the majority effectively ignores the language in Ernest limiting a school’s duty of care to instances where “it releases a child without further supervision”… . Those circumstances do not exist here inasmuch as the child was released to the care of the bus company, which was then responsible for the “further supervision” of the child (id.). The majority also ignores the precedent set by Chainani, which states that a school that has “contracted-out responsibility for transportation” to a private bus company “cannot be held liable on a theory that the children were in [the school’s] physical custody at the time of injury” … . Therefore, defendants’ duty of care ended when the child was released to the physical custody of the bus company, especially where, as here, the bus company was hired by the City and had no contractual relationship with the School. Brown v First Student, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08776, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

,

PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SNOW AND ICE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT OFFER ANY EVIDENCE OF THE STATE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the property owner’s (PA’s) and snow removal contractor’s (Cristi’s) motions for summary judgment in this parking lot snow and ice slip and fall case. PA did not demonstrate a lack of constructive knowledge of the condition and Cristi offered no evidence of the actual state of the area where plaintiff fell:

To demonstrate lack of constructive notice, a defendant must “produc[e] evidence of its maintenance activities on the day of the accident, and specifically that the dangerous condition did not exist when the area was last inspected or cleaned” … . PA failed to produce such evidence. PA’s representative testified that PA’s logs for the day of and day prior to the accident did not identify any icy conditions in the parking lot. However, he also admitted that it would not necessarily be documented in these logs (or elsewhere) if a PA employee noticed an icy condition. Moreover, he testified that checking for icy conditions was not the focus of PA’s inspections. …

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are exceptions to this rule, including where “the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm'” by “creat[ing] or exacerbat[ing]” a dangerous condition… . It is undisputed that Cristi performed snow removal and salting in the area of the accident and that it had a continuing obligation to inspect and maintain the area even after snow removal was complete, but it offered no evidence regarding the actual state of the area at issue prior to the accident. Its “silence with respect to the actual snow removal operations at issue” renders Cristi’s prima facie showing “patently insufficient” … . Barrett v Aero Snow Removal Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08753, First Dept 12-20-18

 

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