You are here: / Negligence

$1.5 MILLION VERDICT AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF, A 72-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS SHE HAD JUST BOARDED ACCELERATED QUICKLY CAUSING HER TO FALL, INJURING HER HEAD, BACK, NERVES AND KNEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department upheld the $1.5 million verdict in favor of plaintiff, a 72-year-old woman who alleged the bus driver accelerated quickly just after plaintiff got on the bus causing her to fall and sustain disk, nerve, knee and head injuries:

We … agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The evidence submitted by the defendant in support of that branch of the motion failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the movement of the bus at issue was unusual and violent … . Since the defendant did not sustain its prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

The award of damages for past and future pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c]…). Castillo v MTA Bus Co.. 2018 NY Slip Op 05134. Second Dept 7-11-18

NEGLIGENCE (BUSES, $1.5 MILLION VERDICT AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF, A 72-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS SHE HAD JUST BOARDED ACCELERATED QUICKLY CAUSING HER TO FALL, INJURING HER HEAD, BACK, NERVES AND KNEE (SECOND DEPT))/BUSES (NEGLIGENCE, $1.5 MILLION VERDICT AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF, A 72-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS SHE HAD JUST BOARDED ACCELERATED QUICKLY CAUSING HER TO FALL, INJURING HER HEAD, BACK, NERVES AND KNEE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING RECOVERY OF UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was required to turn over to defendant records pertaining to no-fault benefits in this car accident case. Plaintiff had argued the records were not discoverable because plaintiff was not seeking to recover unreimbursed special damages:

CPLR 3101(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” “The words, material and necessary,’ are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity”… .

In an action relating to a motor vehicle accident, a plaintiff’s medical records relating to treatment following the accident are material and necessary to the defense of a plaintiff’s claim to having sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102, in addition to any claim to recover damages for loss of enjoyment of life … . Accordingly, since the plaintiff’s no-fault records are material and necessary to the defense of this action, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order … .

The plaintiff improperly relies upon CPLR 4545(a) to support his contention that collateral source records are not discoverable where a plaintiff is not seeking to recover unreimbursed special damages. CPLR 4545(a) governs the admissibilityof evidence to establish that damages have been or will be covered in whole or part by a collateral source. By contrast, in the context of discovery, “[a]ny matter which may lead to the discovery of admissible proof is discoverable, as is any matter which bears upon a defense, even if the facts themselves are not admissible” … . Moreover, whether any of the plaintiff’s no-fault records are admissible for purposes other than for showing collateral source payment is not before us at this stage of the action. Cajamarca v Osatuk, 2018 NY Slip Op 05133, Second Dept 7-11-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, DISCOVERY, RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCOVERY, RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, NEGLIGENCE, DISCOVERY, RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/NO-FAULT BENEFITS (NEGLIGENCE, DISCOVERY, RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (NO-FAULT BENEFITS,  RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DISCOVERY, RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S RECEIPT OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNREIMBURSED SPECIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiffs did not alleged defendant created the dangerous condition and defendant demonstrated it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition:

Here, the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendant created the ice condition. By submitting the deposition testimony of the director of the preschool and the injured plaintiff, the defendant established, prima facie, that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged ice that caused the plaintiff to fall … . The preschool director testified that she entered the building through the rear entrance about 90 minutes prior to the incident, and she did not see any ice on the ground. The injured plaintiff testified that she did not see the ice before she fell. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. General awareness that snow or ice may be present during winter months was legally insufficient to constitute notice of the particular condition that caused the injured plaintiff’s fall … . Bombino-Munroe v Church of St. Bernard, 2018 NY Slip Op 05131, Second Dept 7-11-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS COMPANY HAD NOTICE OF A PUDDLE OF HYDRAULIC FLUID ON THE FLOOR OF THE BUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the cause of action alleging defendant bus company had notice of the presence of hydraulic fluid on the floor of the bus, which caused plaintiff to slip and fall, properly survived defendants’ motion for summary judgment. There was a video from inside the bus which appeared to show that the puddle of fluid had been “tracked through” before plaintiff boarded the bus:

” [V]iew[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, [and] giving that party the benefit of every reasonable inference’ ” … , we conclude that there is a triable issue of fact because the evidence of the size of the puddle and that the puddle had been “tracked through” before any passengers boarded the bus following the layover constitutes circumstantial evidence that would permit a jury to infer that the puddle had existed for a sufficient length of time for defendants to have discovered and remedied it … . Mills v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 05098, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS COMPANY HAD NOTICE OF A PUDDLE OF HYDRAULIC FLUID ON THE FLOOR OF THE BUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS COMPANY HAD NOTICE OF A PUDDLE OF HYDRAULIC FLUID ON THE FLOOR OF THE BUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS COMPANY HAD NOTICE OF A PUDDLE OF HYDRAULIC FLUID ON THE FLOOR OF THE BUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

CONDUCT OF THE BUFFALO BILLS OR THE COUNTY OF ERIE AS THE OWNER OF THE FOOTBALL STADIUM WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN UNPROVOKED CRIMINAL ASSAULT ON THE PLAINTIFF AT THE STADIUM, NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action against the Buffalo Bills and the County of Erie, the owner of the football stadium where the Bills played, based upon an unprovoked attack on the plaintiff at the stadium, was properly dismissed:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court properly determined that the conduct of the Bills and the County was not a proximate cause of his injuries. “[A]s an independent act far removed from [the allegedly negligent] conduct [of the Bills and the County], the [assailants’ unprovoked] criminal assault broke the causal nexus [between such allegedly negligent conduct and plaintiff’s injury]. The attack was extraordinary and not foreseeable or preventable in the normal course of events” … . Indeed, “[i]t is difficult to understand what measures could have been undertaken to prevent plaintiff’s injury except presumably to have had a security officer posted at the precise location where the incident took place or wherever [rival football fans] were gathered, surely an unreasonable burden” … . We thus conclude that the court properly granted the motion of the Bills and the County and dismissed the amended complaint against them. Wrobel v Doe, 2018 NY Slip Op 05097, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, CONDUCT OF THE BUFFALO BILLS OR THE COUNTY OF ERIE AS THE OWNER OF THE FOOTBALL STADIUM WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN UNPROVOKED CRIMINAL ASSAULT ON THE PLAINTIFF AT THE STADIUM, NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, CONDUCT OF THE BUFFALO BILLS OR THE COUNTY OF ERIE AS THE OWNER OF THE FOOTBALL STADIUM WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN UNPROVOKED CRIMINAL ASSAULT ON THE PLAINTIFF AT THE STADIUM, NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, CONDUCT OF THE BUFFALO BILLS OR THE COUNTY OF ERIE AS THE OWNER OF THE FOOTBALL STADIUM WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN UNPROVOKED CRIMINAL ASSAULT ON THE PLAINTIFF AT THE STADIUM, NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED WITH REVIEWING AN X-RAY OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHEST ON BEHALF OF DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INFORM THE DECEDENT OR HIS PHYSICIAN OF THE CANCER FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeJoseph, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical professionals involved with review of an x-ray of plaintiff’s decedent’s chest on behalf of plaintiff’s decedent’s employer did not have a duty to report the findings to the decedent or decedent’s physician. The mass that was seen on the x-ray apparently was cancer and plaintiff’s decedent was not informed. He later asked his employer, NYSEG, about the findings but by then the cancer was incurable:

The chest x ray was performed at defendant Lockport Memorial Hospital and decedent signed a consent form prior to the procedure. The consent form provided, in pertinent part, the following: “I, [decedent], understand that medical examinations done at this facility are for evaluation purposes for either employment suitability or worker’s compensation injury/illness treatment. The examinations done here are not intended to detect all underlying health conditions and do not replace the medical care provided by my personal physician. I hereby consent to the examination for the stated purposes or request the services stipulated of [WNYOM]. Furthermore, I understand that all medical information related to my ability to perform the functions of my job will be reported to the designated employer representatives at my place of employment.” …

“The failure to communicate significant medical findings to a patient or his treating physician is not malpractice but ordinary negligence” … . * * *

… [T]there is no dispute that defendants correctly interpreted the results of the x ray and timely conveyed the results to decedent’s employer. Notably absent from the record is the identity or even existence of decedent’s treating physician. Nor is there any indication that defendants were made aware of any treating physician. Furthermore, the consent form, executed by decedent, specifically indicated that decedent “underst[oo]d that all medical information related to [his] ability to perform the functions of [his] job w[ould] be reported to the designated employer representatives at [his] place of employment.” There is also no dispute that defendants adhered to the requirements set forth in the consent form. We therefore conclude that … there was no duty to decedent and, as stated by the Court of Appeals, “[w]e have been reluctant to expand a doctor’s duty of care to a patient to encompass nonpatients. A critical concern underlying this reluctance is the danger that a recognition of a duty would render doctors liable to a prohibitive number of possible plaintiffs” … . Kingsley v Price, 2018 NY Slip Op 05088, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​NEGLIGENCE (THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED WITH REVIEWING AN X-RAY OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHEST ON BEHALF OF DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INFORM THE DECEDENT OR HIS PHYSICIAN OF THE CANCER FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED WITH REVIEWING AN X-RAY OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHEST ON BEHALF OF DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INFORM THE DECEDENT OR HIS PHYSICIAN OF THE CANCER FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff, who alleged he was punched in the face by defendant bar’s employee (Bonawitz), properly pled causes of action against the bar for negligent hiring and supervision, as well as vicarious liability. Although vicarious liability requires the employee to be acting within the scope of his employment, and a negligent hiring and supervision cause of action requires that the employee act outside the scope of employment, pleading inconsistent theories in the alternative is allowed. The court noted that the “breach of the duty to keep the premises safe” cause of action was properly dismissed because it constituted an attempt to plead vicarious liability for an intentional tort as negligence to avoid the one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts:

The second cause of action alleges that the employer defendants negligently hired and supervised Bonawitz. Supreme Court dismissed this cause of action based on cases holding that, “[g]enerally, where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable under the theory of respondent superior, and the plaintiff may not proceed with a claim to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or training” … . The rationale for this rule “is that if the employee was not negligent, there is no basis for imposing liability on the employer, and if the employee was negligent, the employer must pay the judgment regardless of the reasonableness of the hiring or retention or the adequacy of the training” … . As is apparent from these cases, however, this rule applies where the employee is alleged to have acted negligently, not intentionally.

Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the employer defendants negligently hired, supervised and retained Bonawitz even though they knew or should have known of his propensity to assault or intentionally inflict harm on others … . Moreover, the negligence of an employer is not transformed into intentional conduct simply because the employee’s wrongful conduct was intentional … . Thus, plaintiff’s allegations of negligence were timely asserted within the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [5] …).

Plaintiff did not directly allege that Bonawitz was acting within the scope of his employment when he punched plaintiff. Even if such allegations were included, allegations of vicarious liability, though incompatible with a claim of negligent hiring and supervision, do not require dismissal because a plaintiff may plead inconsistent theories in the alternative … . McCarthy v Mario Enters., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05006, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUE OF LIMITATIONS, INTENTIONAL TORTS, ,EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 214 (STATUE OF LIMITATIONS, INTENTIONAL TORTS, ,EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS (NEGLIGENCE, EMPLOYMENT LAW, BARS AND RESTAURANTS, THIRD PARTY ASSAULTS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against her school based upon bullying and harassment should not have been denied. Before plaintiff turned 18, her father made a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim which was denied because of improper service. When plaintiff turned 18 she made the motion on her own behalf. Because the statute of limitations was tolled until plaintiff turned 18 (CPLR 208) her motion was timely. The Third Department determined the school had timely notice of the claim, plaintiff had introduced some evidence the school would not be prejudiced, meeting her burden, and the school’s demonstration of prejudice was speculative and otherwise inadequate:

Here, our review of the record reveals that defendant had actual knowledge of the alleged harassment, intimidation and bullying within a reasonable time … .

… [P]laintiff was initially required to “present some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice”… . She did so by submitting the … evidence that defendant knew of plaintiff’s claims and was able to investigate at least one of the incidents shortly after it occurred, as well as screen images taken from defendant’s website indicating that relevant school officials were still employed at the time of the motion. …

The burden thus shifted to defendant “to rebut [plaintiff’s] showing with particularized evidence” … . In this regard, defendant’s counsel asserted by affirmation that the incidents were no longer fresh in witnesses’ memories as a result of the passage of time and that any witnesses “would likely be children” who might have graduated or whose memories might have faded … . However, a finding of substantial prejudice “cannot be based solely on speculation and inference; rather, a determination of substantial prejudice must be based on evidence on the record” … . Sherb v Monticello Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05004, Third Dept 7-5-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW,  ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, TOLLING PROVISION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 208 (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, TOLLING PROVISION, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S FATHER’S PRIOR ATTEMPT TO MOVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM FAILED BECAUSE OF FLAWED SERVICE, PLAINTIFF, UPON TURNING 18, BECAUSE OF THE TOLLING STATUTE, MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT, PLAINTIFF MADE A SHOWING THE SCHOOL SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY, AND THE SCHOOL’S SHOWING OF PREJUDICE WAS SPECULATIVE (THIRD DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant homeowner’s motion for summary judgment in this snow-ice sidewalk slip and fall case should have been granted. Under the NYC Administrative Code the owner of a single-family residential home has no statutory duty to maintain the abutting sidewalk. Although there was evidence defendant removed ice and snow from the sidewalk, there was no showing the snow removal efforts exacerbated or created the dangerous condition:

While there is record evidence that the defendants may have engaged in snow removal efforts prior to the accident, the defendants cannot be held liable for the removal of snow and ice in an incomplete manner … . Since the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary facts to show that the defendants’ snow removal efforts created or exacerbated an existing hazard, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Wise v Filincieri, 2018 NY Slip Op 05074, Second Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined there were questions of fact about whether a cluttered area at a day care center was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s falling and whether a bicycle ridden by a three-year-old was a dangerous instrument requiring supervision by the operator of the day care center. The plaintiff had picked up her infant when her three-year-old ran into her with the bicycle. Plaintiff alleged that, had the area not been cluttered with toys and furniture, she could have avoided falling. The dissenters argued that the bicycle was not a dangerous instrument and the negligent supervision cause of action failed as a matter of law:

Here, the actions of the three-year-old child were unquestionably the precipitating factor in plaintiff’s accident. However, plaintiff explained that, after being struck by the bicycle, she attempted to regain her balance but was unable to because she was “trapped” between a table and an ottoman and could not take a step in any direction without tripping on one of the various objects scattered about the porch. She further averred that, had the floor not been so cluttered with toys, objects and furniture, she would have been able to regain her balance before falling. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every favorable inference that may be drawn therefrom … , we find a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition of the porch was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . …

As the Court of Appeals has explained, “[c]hildren might, at various points in their development, be permitted, and properly so, to use bicycles, lawn mowers, power tools, motorcycles, or automobiles, all of which are, in some contingencies, ‘dangerous instruments'” … . “[T]he determination of whether a particular instrument is dangerous ‘depends upon the nature and complexity of the allegedly dangerous instrument, the age, intelligence and experience of the child, and his [or her] proficiency with the instrument'”… . Pineiro v Rush, 2018 NY Slip Op 04994, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/BICYCLES (DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (DAY CARE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/DAY CARE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))

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