You are here: / Negligence
,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s decedent’s recklessness was the sole legal cause of her death. During Superstorm Sandy plaintiff’s decedent went outside, barefoot, to photograph downed power lines and was electrocuted:

The decedent was killed during Superstorm Sandy when she twice ventured outside her home to photograph downed power lines, and was electrocuted when one of the lines came in contact with her ankle. Her friend, who witnessed the incident, provided statements attesting to the fact that decedent left her home to investigate whether there was a fire, was shocked when she touched a metal gate in her front yard, returned to her home, and then exited the house again, barefoot this time, in order to photograph the scene. Decedent’s friend stated that he warned her repeatedly to stay away from the live wires and to get back inside, but she disregarded his warnings.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since decedent’s recklessness in approaching live power wires in the midst of a major storm in order to take photographs was the sole legal cause of her death… . Plaintiffs contend that defendants were negligent in failing to properly maintain the power wires, adequately prepare for the storm, and respond rapidly enough to the notice of the emergency situation resulting from the downed wires. However, even if defendants were negligent, decedent’s recklessness was a superseding cause of her death … . Abraham v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04517, First Dept 6-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/UTILITIES  (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESSNESS (NEGLIGENCE, SOLE LEGAL CAUSE, ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/SOLE LEGAL CAUSE  (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))/SUPERSEDING CAUSE  (ELECTROCUTION, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S RECKLESSNESS WAS THE SOLE LEGAL CAUSE OF HER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION BY DOWNED POWER LINES (FIRST DEPT))

ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff tripped over a yellow plastic chain lying on the ground. Because plaintiff need not show freedom from comparative fault, the allegation that the chain was open and obvious did not preclude summary judgment:

… [P]laintiff was not required to demonstrate his own freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment as to defendant’s liability (see Rodriguez v City of New York, ___ NY3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op 02287 [2018]). For this reason, we also reject defendant’s argument that the chain on which plaintiff tripped was open and obvious, since that issue too is relevant to comparative fault and does not preclude summary resolution of the issue of defendant’s liability … . Derix v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 04507, First Dept 6-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SLIP AND FALL, ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against defendant public corporation was properly granted for only one of two accidents. The Fourth Department held that the defendant did not have timely actual knowledge of the first accident because there was no evidence defendant was provided with the relevant accident report:

While we agree with respondent that claimant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay … , “[t]he failure to offer an excuse for the delay is not fatal where . . . actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondent]” … . …

… [W]e agree with claimant that he established that respondent would not be substantially prejudiced by any delay in serving the notice of claim. “[B]ecause the injur[ies] allegedly resulted from . . . fall[s] at a construction site, it is highly unlikely that the conditions existing at the time of the accident[s] would [still] have existed’ ” had the notice of claim been timely filed … . …

… [C]laimant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that respondent had timely actual knowledge of the first accident. Despite having engaged in pre-action discovery, claimant is unable to provide any evidence that the incident report related to the first accident was ever transmitted to respondent, and there was no mention of the first accident in the construction closeout report submitted to respondent. Inasmuch as there is no evidence that respondent received timely actual knowledge of the occurrence of the first accident, respondent could not have received timely actual knowledge of ” the injuries or damages’ ” resulting therefrom … . Matter of Szymkowiak v New York Power Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04482, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC CORPORATION (NOTICE OF CLAIM,  MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC CORPORATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR ONE OF TWO ACCIDENTS, CLAIMANT FAILED TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRST OF TWO ACCIDENTS (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted:

“It is well established that [a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence”… . “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Here, there was sharply conflicting expert testimony with respect to whether plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms could have occurred without negligence on the part of defendant, and the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendants’ experts and reject the testimony of plaintiff’s expert … . We conclude that the court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as “the jury had ample basis to conclude that plaintiff’s postoperative condition was not attributable to any deviation from accepted community standards of medical practice by defendant” … , and thus the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent was not “palpably irrational or wrong” … . Clark v Loftus, 2018 NY Slip Op 04473, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, MOTION TO, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this vehicle-pedestrian traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated she suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (fractures in her foot). And defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that she sustained when a vehicle operated by defendant struck her foot while she was walking her bicycle on the street beneath an overpass. We agree with plaintiff, as limited by her brief, that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying that part of plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of serious injury.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every reasonable inference  … , we conclude that defendant failed to meet his initial burden on his motion of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact, including whether he violated his ” common-law duty to see that which he should have seen [as a driver] through the proper use of his senses’ ” … and his statutory duty to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist[ or] pedestrian” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [a]).

Finally, it is uncontested that plaintiff established as a matter of law on her cross motion that she sustained fractures in her foot as a result of the accident and, therefore, she is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of serious injury (see Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Luttrell v Vega, 2018 NY Slip Op 04468, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SERIOUS INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/SERIOUS INJURY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SERIOUS INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN, AND PLAINTIFF’S FRACTURED FOOT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined neither party was entitled to summary judgment on Labor Law 240 (1), Labor Law 241 (6) and common law negligence causes of action stemming from plaintiff’s use of the top half of an extension ladder that slipped out from under him. With respect to the common law negligence cause of action against the property owner, the court explained:

Where the injured worker’s employer provides the allegedly defective equipment, the analysis turns on whether the defendant owner had the authority to supervise or control the work … . Where, however, the defendant owner provides the allegedly defective equipment, the legal standard “is whether the owner created the dangerous or defective condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof” … , because in that situation the defendant property owner “is possessed of the authority, as owner, to remedy the condition” of the defective equipment … . Contrary to defendants’ contention, they failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not create the dangerous condition of the ladder or have either actual or constructive notice of it. Moreover, “the absence of rubber shoes on a ladder is a visible and apparent defect,’ evidence of which may be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of constructive notice” … . Sochan v Mueller, 2018 NY Slip Op 04457, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff insurer could not completely disclaim coverage of injuries suffered by the defendant at the insured home (owned by the McCabe’s). McCabe was convicted of assaulting and strangling the defendant. Defendant alleges that after McCabe assaulted her she fell over a tripping hazard in the McCabe home and was injured in the fall. Although the insurer can properly disclaim coverage for any injuries inflicted by McCabe’s intentional criminal conduct under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the insurer could not, at this early stage, disclaim coverage for any injuries that might have been caused by McCabe’s negligence (tripping hazard, failure to seek medical care, etc.):

Plaintiff asserts that, to convict McCabe, the criminal jury must have disbelieved his version of events. It is possible, however, that the jury disbelieved only some portions of his testimony … . The jury may have found it incredible that all of defendant’s facial and head injuries were caused when she tried to walk on her own, fell over a raised threshold in the doorway and hit her head on a cinder block wall during that fall. It is also possible that the jury believed that McCabe slammed defendant’s head into the ground or a wall, thereby causing some of her injuries, but the jury did not render any findings regarding what happened after the choking and slamming, such as whether defendant then got up, tried to walk and fell. To establish the convictions, it was unnecessary for the jury to have made findings regarding whether McCabe created a tripping hazard, allowed defendant to walk on her own after he had rendered her partially incapacitated or failed to seek medical help for her after the criminal assault. Hence, the issues as to insurance coverage and exclusions are not identical to the issues decided in McCabe’s criminal trial, and defendants here did not have a full and fair opportunity in the criminal trial to address some of the issues regarding McCabe’s negligence allegedly committed before and after the criminal assault. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no possible factual or legal basis to support a finding that some of defendant’s injuries were unintended by McCabe, so as to bar coverage under the policy exclusion … . Accordingly, collateral estoppel does not apply here, except as to the more narrow issues necessarily decided in the criminal trial, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment or a declaratory judgment at this early stage of this coverage action … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Chauncey McCabe, 2018 NY Slip Op 04416, Third Dept 6-14-18

​INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined no special relationship had been formed between the police department and plaintiff’s decedent, who was killed by her husband after she alerted the police he had contacted her in violation of an order of protection. The husband had previously taken plaintiff’s decedent and their two teenage daughters hostage and threatened them with knives and a shotgun. The police department was immune from suit:

Generally, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection” … . When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person … . The elements required to establish such a duty are: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that, while the police endeavored to contact the husband in order to instruct him not to further communicate with the decedent, the police did not promise to arrest the husband and the decedent could not have justifiably relied upon assurances of police protection … . Axt v Hyde Park Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 04298, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, POLICE, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE, NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY HER HUSBAND SHORTLY AFTER SHE REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT HER HUSBAND HAD CONTACTED HER IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim, two years after the claim accrued, to add the correct address of the accident was properly denied. Plaintiff did not demonstrate the failure to provide the correct address did not prejudice the NYC Housing Authority (defendant):

A motion for leave to amend a notice of claim may be granted provided that the error in the original notice of claim was made in good faith and the municipality has not been prejudiced thereby … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden of demonstrating the absence of prejudice to the defendant arising from the plaintiff’s incorrect description of the accident location… . The plaintiff relied solely on the transient nature of the condition that allegedly caused her to fall to support her contention that the defendant did not suffer prejudice. The plaintiff did not allege that there were any witnesses to the incident or to the condition complained of, that the plaintiff received any medical assistance at the site, or that the accident was reported to anyone so as to give the defendant actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period or a reasonable time thereafter … . Jenkins v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT))

,

BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing a bench trial verdict in Supreme Court, determined defendant transit authority was not liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall on black ice upon exiting defendant’s bus:

The defendant, as a common carrier, “owe[d] a duty to alighting passenger[s] to stop at a place where [they] may safely disembark and leave the area” … , and towards that end “to exercise reasonable and commensurate care in view of the dangers to be apprehended” … . However, whether the defendant has breached its duty to provide a passenger a safe place to alight from the bus will depend on whether the bus driver could have observed the dangerous condition from the driver’s vantage point… . Here, there was no evidence that the bus driver was aware of or reasonably should have been aware of the ice in the roadway. The fact that it was cold and there was a pile of snow near the rear exit does not create a basis to conclude that the bus driver should have known of the dangerous condition … . Guzman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04310, Second Dept 6-13-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, BUSES, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (BUSES, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT))/BUSES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, BENCH TRIAL VERDICT REVERSED, COMMON CARRIER NOT LIABLE FOR BUS PASSENGER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE AFTER STEPPING OFF THE BUS (SECOND 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