You are here: / Negligence
, ,

INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the instruction to follow up did not constitute a continuing course of treatment and the statute of limitations, therefore, was not tolled in this medical malpractice action. The court further found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply to defendants who were deliberately omitted from the action:

“Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 2½ year [limitations] period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment, when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint'” … . Here, the plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact as to whether this toll applies. The diagnostic services performed by Buscaglia were discrete and complete, and not part of a course of treatment … . As to Watkins, the mere statement on the decedent’s transfer summary that the decedent should “follow-up” with “Dr. Watkins’ clinic” as an outpatient in two or three months did not evince a continued course of treatment where no follow-up appointment was actually scheduled, and the decedent thereafter received treatment at other hospitals … .

The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of the relation back doctrine … . That doctrine requires the plaintiff to demonstrate, among other things, that the new defendants knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been commenced against them as well … . “When a plaintiff intentionally decides not to assert a claim against a party known to be potentially liable, there has been no mistake and the plaintiff should not be given a second opportunity to assert that claim after the limitations period has expired” … . Here, there was no showing of a mistake concerning the defendants’ identities, which would have prevented the plaintiff from commencing an action against them before the statute of limitations expired … . Yanez v Watkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 05622, Second Dept 8-1-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW UP IS NOT PART OF A CONTINUING COURSE OF TREATMENT, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANTS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FROM THE ACTION, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant did not not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord and did not demonstrate it did not create or have notice of the allegedly dangerous condition:

The lease contained a provision obligating the defendant to maintain the interior and exterior public portions of the building, and required the nonparty tenant to make nonstructural repairs. The lease also provided that the defendant reserved the right to re-enter the premises for purposes of, inter alia, inspecting the premises and making repairs. …

“An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct”… . “Even if a defendant is considered an out-of-possession landlord who assumed the obligation to make repairs to its property, it cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a defective condition on the property unless it either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it”… .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it was an out-of-possession landlord that did not have a contractual duty under the lease to maintain the subject exterior door, doorway, and stairwell, or to repair the alleged defects therein that caused the plaintiff’s accident … . Moreover, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly defective conditions, and that it did not have actual or constructive notice of them … . Washington-Fraser v Industrial Home for the Blind, 2018 NY Slip Op 05620, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LEASE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case was properly granted:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or course of conduct'” … . A landlord who has transferred possession and control generally is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property … .

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant submitted a copy of the lease between it and Cold Spring Hills. The lease provided that the maintenance of the entire premises, including the parking lot, was the responsibility of Cold Spring Hills. The evidence submitted in support of the motion shows that the defendant was an out-of-possession landlord and that Cold Spring Hills performed the maintenance of the entire premises. Vicchiarelli v Cold Spring Hills Realty Co., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05619, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, SLIP AND FALL, LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/LEASE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff shareholder in a cooperative could not bring a “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action against individual members of the cooperative board. Plaintiff alleged her cooperative apartment was damaged by water from a greenhouse above the apartment. The first department found that that was no corporate tort for which individual members of the board could be liable:

It is well-settled that a breach of fiduciary duty claim does not lie against individual cooperative board members where there is no allegation of “individual wrongdoing by the members . . . separate and apart from their collective actions taken on behalf of the” cooperative … .  Here, the complaint does not allege that any of the individual board members committed an independent wrong that was distinct from the actions taken as a board collectively. Thus, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is not viable. …

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, this result is entirely consistent with Fletcher v Dakota, Inc. (99 AD3d 43 [1st Dept 2012]). In Fletcher, we concluded that “although participation in a breach of contract will typically not give rise to individual director liability, the participation of an individual director in a corporation’s tort is sufficient to give rise to individual liability” (id. at 47). Thus, we declined to dismiss claims against a cooperative board director who was alleged to have participated in the cooperative’s violation of the State and City Human Rights Laws.

Here, in contrast, there is no viable corporate tort alleging breach of fiduciary duty, because a corporation owes no fiduciary duty to its shareholders … . Thus, in the absence of a corporate tort in which the individual board members could have participated, the breach of fiduciary duty claim as against them was properly dismissed. Indeed, Fletcher made this very point by dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action against an individual board director, while at the same time sustaining Human Rights Law claims against him. Hersh v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05522, First Dept 7-26-18

FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (COOPERATIVES, NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (COOPERATIVES,  NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COOPERATIVES, CORPORATE TORT,  NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined (1) the ventilator on which plaintiff was crouching when it detached and he fell was not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1), (2) plaintiff’s testimony that he couldn’t reach the ventilator, which he was attempting to remove, from the A-frame ladder he was provided entitled him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, and (3) the landlord was entitled to summary judgment on the cross-claim for indemnification by the tenant, noting that the indemnification clause in the lease did not require that the tenant be negligent and that a Labor Law 240 (1) violation is not a finding that the tenant was negligent:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the ventilator he was standing on and disassembling when he fell was not a safety device; it was the object of the demolition project on which he was employed, and was not intended to protect him from elevation-related risks … . …

Despite Eight Oranges’ [tenant’s] argument to the contrary, this indemnification provision does not require a finding of negligence on the part of the tenant before it is triggered. Nor does it violate General Obligations Law § 5-321, “since a finding of liability under Labor Law § 240 is not the equivalent of a finding of negligence and does not give rise to an inference of negligence” … . It is clear from the contractual language at issue that the landlord … intended to be indemnified by the tenant, Eight Oranges, for any “damage or injury occurring or arising to any person” on the property, that is caused by the tenant. Hong-Bao Ren v Gioia St. Marks, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05520, First Dept 7-26-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant insurance brokers’ motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract-negligence action by the insureds was properly granted. The Insureds’ alleged there was an agreement to increase the insurance coverage on the insureds’ home which was destroyed by fire after renovations had been made and there was a special relationship between the brokers and the insureds. There evidence did not support either theory:

As a general principle, insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so; however, they have no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage” … . Thus, “[t]o set forth a case for negligence or breach of contract against an insurance broker, a plaintiff must establish that a specific request was made to the broker for the coverage that was not provided in the policy” … . * * *

Stressing that “special relationships in the insurance brokerage context are the exception, not the norm” … , the Court of Appeals has identified three “exceptional situations” that may give rise to a special relationship: “(1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on” … . Hefty v Paul Seymour Ins. Agency, 2018 NY Slip Op 05547, Third Dept 7-26-18

INSURANCE LAW (NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (INSURANCE LAW, (NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT))

ACTION ALLEGING INJURY FROM A FALLING TREE ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a lawsuit alleging injury from a falling tree on defendant’s property should have been dismissed. Defendant property owner (Alice) demonstrated a lack of notice of the condition of the tree:

“In cases involving fallen trees, a property owner will only be held liable if [she or] he knew or should have known of the defective condition of the tree” … . “Constructive notice in such a case can be imputed if the record establishes that a reasonable inspection would have revealed the dangerous condition of the tree” … . Here, Alice established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that she lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the tree … . Pagan v Jordan, 2018 NY Slip Op 05477, Second Dept 7-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (FALLING TREES, ACTION ALLEGING INJURY FROM A FALLING TREE ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))/TREES (FALLING TREES, NEGLIGENCE, ACTION ALLEGING INJURY FROM A FALLING TREE ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a negligence cause of action, which was based upon a breach of contract allegation, should have been dismissed:

 “[A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” … . “This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” ,,, , “Merely charging a breach of a duty of due care’, employing language familiar to tort law, does not, without more, transform a simple breach of contract into a tort claim” … . “[W]here [a] plaintiff is essentially seeking enforcement of the bargain, the action should proceed under a contract theory” … .

Here, the complaint did not allege facts that would give rise to a duty owed to the plaintiff that is independent of the duty imposed by the parties’ agreement. Ocean Gate Homeowners Assn., Inc. v T.W. Finnerty Prop. Mgt., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05475, Second Dept 7-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (CONTRACT LAW, NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

REAR MOST DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER IN FRONT STOPPED SUDDENLY AND DID NOT SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the rear-most driver (plaintiff) in this rear-end collision case raised a question of fact whether defendant stopped suddenly and did not signal:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … , and a defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident … . “[N]ot every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver. The frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision”… .

Here, in support of her motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted an affidavit in which she averred that she brought her vehicle to a gradual stop to make a left turn onto … . She activated her left turning signal and had been stopped for at least 35 seconds, waiting for traffic to clear, when her vehicle was struck in the rear by the plaintiff’s vehicle. … In opposition, the plaintiff averred that the defendant made a sudden stop and failed to give proper signals, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163. The plaintiff’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant negligently caused or contributed to the accident … . Martinez v Allen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05462, Second Dept 7-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR MOST DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER IN FRONT STOPPED SUDDENLY AND DID NOT SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR MOST DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER IN FRONT STOPPED SUDDENLY AND DID NOT SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR MOST DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER IN FRONT STOPPED SUDDENLY AND DID NOT SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion in limine to strike plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure and preclude the expert from testifying should not have been granted. The court noted that the evidentiary motion was appealable because it involved the merits of this swimming pool injury case and affected a substantial right. The disclosure indicated the expert would testify about New York State code provisions and ANSI/INSPI-4 standards for slides used in swimming pools. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when her head struck the bottom of the pool after sliding into the water head first:

… [T]he court erred in granting that part of the motion to strike the expert witness disclosure and to preclude the expert from testifying with respect to the 2010 Residential Code of New York State (Residential Code) and the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard for aboveground residential swimming pools, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Section 1.2 of that standard provides that “[a]boveground/onground residential swimming pools are for swimming and wading only. No . . . slides or other equipment are to be added to an aboveground/onground pool that in any way indicates that an aboveground/onground pool may be used or intended for . . . sliding purposes,” and the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard is incorporated in the Residential Code that was in effect at the time of plaintiff’s accident (see 2010 Residential Code of New York State §§ R102.6, G109.1). Inasmuch as the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard applies only to residential pools, and the Residential Code applies to family dwellings (see Residential Code § R101.2), we conclude that the Residential Code section adopting the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard applies to private homeowners. Thus, we further conclude that plaintiff’s expert may properly rely on any violation of the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard as “some evidence” of defendants’ negligence … . Redmond v Redmond, 2018 NY Slip Op 05417, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH 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