You are here: / Negligence
, ,

HERE THE NATURE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WAS PROBATIVE OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS’ VAN RAN OVER INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FOOT; DEFENDANTS ALLEGED INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL OFF HER BICYCLE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL ON LIABILITY AND DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a unified trial on liability and damages was an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs alleged defendants’ van ran over infant plaintiff’s foot. Defendants alleged infant plaintiff was injured when she fell off her bicycle. Because the nature of the injury was relevant to proof of defendants’ liability, an unified trial was necessary:

“Unified trials should only be held ‘where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability'” … . “‘The party opposing bifurcation has the burden of showing that the nature of the injuries necessarily assists the factfinder in making a determination with respect to the issue of liability'” … . “Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases” … . Thus, “‘[t]he decision whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion'” … .

Here, the plaintiffs and [defendants] offered conflicting accounts of how the infant plaintiff allegedly was injured, and the plaintiffs demonstrated that evidence regarding the nature of the infant plaintiff’s alleged injuries was probative in determining how the accident occurred … . I.R. v Santos, 2026 NY Slip Op 00270, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: It is a matter of judicial discretion whether to hold a bifurcated or a unified personal-injury trial on liability and damages. But where the nature of the injury is relevant to proving liability, it is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for a unified trial.

 

,

IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PROVE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED OF ICE AND SNOW; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall action and denying defendants’ summary judgment motion, determined defendants did not demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of the icy condition. To demonstrate a lack of constructive notice, a defendant must prove the area of the slip and fall was recently inspected or cleaned. Proof of general snow and ice removal practices is not enough:

“In moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice, the defendants [have] the burden of establishing, prima facie, that [they] neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition” … . “Accordingly, a property owner seeking summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged icy condition. The defendants’ maintenance employee provided only general information about his snow and ice removal practices, and he failed to specify when he last salted, removed ice from, or inspected the area where the plaintiff fell relative to the time of the accident … . Jackson v A M E Zion-Trinity Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00243, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: There used to be reversals of slip and fall cases on this ground every week for ten years or so. Now they are rare.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFFS-STUDENTS, AN ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT WAS DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISON AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined that the cause of action alleging defendant school’s negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment for plaintiff-students, although sufficiently pled, must be dismissed as duplicative of the negligent supervision and negligent retention causes of action:

… [T]he duty element for plaintiffs’ [“failure to provide a safe and secure environment”] claim is premised on the special duty owed to them under the doctrine of in loco parentis. … [T]eachers and schools owe their students “such care of them as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” …. . This duty stems from the fact that schools “in assuming physical custody and control over [their] students, effectively take[] the place of parents and guardians” … . Negligence claims based on in loco parentis require actual or constructive notice to the school of previous similar conduct … .

Although plaintiffs adequately pleaded a claim for negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment, this claim should have been dismissed as duplicative of plaintiffs’ claims for negligent supervision and negligent retention. A cause of action is duplicative when it relies on the same facts and seeks the same relief as another cause of action … . Significantly, “‘it is not the theory behind a claim that determines whether it is duplicative,’ but rather the conduct alleged and the relief sought” … .

Here, the fact that the cause of action for negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment is based on a different theory — the duty of in loco parentis — than the other causes of action pleaded is not germane to whether it is duplicative. Rather, the claim is duplicative because the conduct alleged and the relief sought, for both the failure to provide a safe and secure environment and the negligent supervision and retention claims, are identical. John Doe 42 v Yeshiva Univ., 2026 NY Slip Op 00225, First Dept 1-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of duplicative causes of action. Here the action for negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment was deemed duplicative of the actions for negligent supervision and negligent retention, even though it was based on a different theory (in loco parentis).

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT HOME CARE AGENCY WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT HEALTHCARE PLAN AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE THE HEALTHCARE PLAN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, BATTERY AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION COMMITED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE HOME CARE AGENCY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that Lighthouse, the parent company of GuildNet, a long-term healthcare plan, could not be held liable for the assault, battery and negligence allegedly committed by an employee of Ellison Home Care Companion Agency, which provided healthcare aides who attended to plaintiff’s mother. Plaintiff alleged his mother was assaulted and battered by Shaw, who was employed by Ellison. The contract between GuildNet and Ellison described Ellison as an independent contractor. Because Shaw was not GuldNet’s employee, GuildNet was not vicariously liable for Shaw’s actions:

The assault, battery, and negligence claims should have been dismissed as against GuildNet on the ground that Shaw was not its employee at the time of the underlying events. GuildNet and Ellison’s Participating Provider Agreement expressly defined their relationship as one of independent contractors rather than employer-employee … . The record discloses that GuildNet had only incidental control and general supervisory power over Ellison’s work, which is insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship … . Further, Ellison admitted that Shaw was its employee and acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the underlying events.

The remaining claim for negligent supervision should also have been dismissed. To the extent that it is predicated on GuildNet’s alleged failure to supervise Shaw despite knowledge of her “propensity for the sort of behavior which caused” [plainiff’s mother’s] injuries and death … , Shaw was not GuildNet’s employee, and the record is bereft of any information that could impute to GuildNet knowledge of her propensity either to commit assault or battery or to ignore a client in distress … . To the extent that the claim is instead predicated on GuildNet’s alleged failure to supervise the care that [plaintiff’s mother] received, namely, by failing to assign a competent agency to assign a competent home health care aide to work with [her], plaintiff has not identified how such a failure proximately caused [her] injuries and death, assuming that GuildNet even had a duty to do so in the first place … . Pander v GuildNet, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00201, First Dep-15-26

Practice Point: A party which hires a party as an “independent contractor” and does not exercise supervisory control over the independent contractor’s work will not be vicariously liable for wrongdoing by the independent contractor.

 

, ,

THE DISMISSAL OF TWO FEDERAL LAWSUITS AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHOOL (ALLEGING SEXUAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFFS-STUDENTS) ON STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS GROUNDS DID NOT GIVE RISE TO A “VESTED RIGHT” REQUIRING THE DISMISSAL OF THE STATE ACTION UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING THE SAME FACTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined that the dismissal of two federal lawsuits as barred by the statute of limitations did not create a “vested right” such that a state Child Victims Act action based on the facts alleged in the federal lawsuits should be dismissed. The lawsuits stemmed from allegations of sexual and physical abuse of plaintiffs, students at defendant school:

The federal doctrine of vested rights has roots in common and even natural law. * * *

The case most often cited by modern cases for articulating the doctrine is McCullough v Virginia (172 US 102 [1898]). There, a taxpayer prevailed in a Virginia state court against the State of Virginia, obtaining a judgment for a tax refund (id.). Before the judgment was executed, the Virginia legislature repealed the legislation that had entitled the taxpayer to a refund (id.). McCullough held that the United States Constitution barred the state legislature from repudiating the state court judgment, explaining that “[it] is not within the power of the legislature to take away rights which have been once vested by a judgment,” and that when “passed into judgment the power of the legislature to disturb the rights created thereby ceases” … .

McCullough, its progeny, and earlier cases establish that a final money judgment gives rise to a vested due process property right, which entitles the judgment creditor to the same constitutional protections afforded other forms of property … . * * *

In describing their purported property right, the … defendants argue that they are not asserting a property right in “any previously-applicable statute of limitations, but rather in the final federal judgments that they received.” Indeed, if the final federal judgments, standing alone, do not vest defendants with a constitutionally protected property right, the argument fails because, as the … defendants concede, “[o]f course a statute of limitations itself does not create property rights” … . M.T. v Yeshiva Univ., 2026 NY Slip Op 00218, First Dept 1-15-26

Practice Point: The dismissal of federal lawsuits as barred by the statute of limitations did not constitute a “vested right” requiring dismissal of the state action under the Child Victims Act based on the same facts.​

 

,

THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY BROKEN GLASS IN A DOOR WAS CAPTURED ON VIDEO WHICH WAS NEGLIGENTLY ERASED; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE GLASS BROKE WHEN PLAINTIFF PULLED ON THE DOOR; AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUILDING’S SECURITY COMPANY WHO SAW THE VIDEO CLAIMED PLAINTIFF PUNCHED THE GLASS; PRECLUSION OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE VIDEO WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the video showing plaintiff’s injury from broken glass in a door was negligently, not intentionally, erased. Therefore the proper sanction was an adverse inference charge, not the preclusion of any evidence about the contents of the video. Plaintiff alleged the glass broke when plaintiff pulled on the door. Williams, an employee of the building-security company who viewed the video, claimed plaintiff punched the glass:

… [P]laintiff showed that the defendants had an obligation to preserve the video surveillance footage of the incident at the time that the footage was destroyed. Williams learned that the glass in the door was broken the same day that the incident occurred, and she investigated and documented it. Furthermore, the defendants’ site manager testified at a deposition that the plaintiff’s mother called after the incident to report that the plaintiff’s arm had gone through the glass in the door, causing “severe injury,” and that he was in the hospital. After receiving this report, the site manager testified, she spoke with Williams and learned that Williams had viewed video surveillance footage depicting the incident and had created an incident report. “Given the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries and the immediate documentation and investigation into the accident by the defendants’ employee[ ], the defendants were on notice of possible litigation and thus under an obligation to preserve any evidence that might be needed for future litigation” … . * * *

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendants from presenting any evidence regarding Williams’s observations of the video surveillance footage, as this sanction disproportionately eliminated their defense to this action. Instead, under the circumstances, including the negligent, rather than intentional, destruction of the video surveillance footage and the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff, the court should have directed that an adverse inference charge be given against the defendants at trial with respect to the video surveillance footage of the incident … . Battle v Fulton Park Site 4 Houses, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00114, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: Here preclusion of testimony about the contents of a negligently (not intentionally) erased video which depicted the incident was deemed too severe a spoliation sanction because preclusion eliminated the only defense to the action. An adverse inference charge was deemed the appropriate sanction.

 

,

HERE AN INDEPENDENT CLEANING CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY CREATED A DANGEROUS FLOOR CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE, MARSHALLS, THE RETAIL STORE WHERE THE INJURY OCCURRED, COULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE BECAUSE MARSHALLS HAS A NONDELGABLE DUTY TO KEEP THE PUBLIC AREAS OF ITS STORE SAFE; WHETEHER MARSHALLS HAD NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IS NOT AN ISSUE WHERE VICARIOUS LIABILITY MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that Marshall’s had a nondelegable duty to keep the public area of its store safe. The underlying fact of the case are not described but plaintiff was apparently injured because of the negligence of defendant cleaning subcontractor. The defendant which hired the subcontractor was not liable because the subcontractor was retained as an independent contractor. But the store was liable for the subcontractor’s negligence based upon its nondelegable duty to keep public areas safe (notice of the dangerous condition is not an issue):

The general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor is not liable for that contractor’s negligent acts … . The record establishes that neither USM [the company which hired the independent contractor] nor Marshalls exercised control over how [the independent contractor] performed its cleaning tasks at the Marshalls store where plaintiff was injured, and that USM was not even present at the location at the time of the accident. * * *

… [T]he court should not have granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Marshalls, which had a nondelegable duty to maintain the public area of its store in a reasonably safe condition. Therefore, Marshalls can be held vicariously liable for any negligence on the part of the subcontractor that caused the floor to become unsafe … . In light of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to consider whether Marshalls established lack of notice of the hazardous condition. Jones v Marshalls, 2026 NY Slip Op 00087, First Dept 1-13-26

Practice Point: Here a retail store, Marshall’s could be vicariously liable for a slip and fall caused by the negligence of an independent cleaning contractor. The store has a nondelegable duty to keep its public areas safe. The question whether Marshall’s had notice of the dangerous condition is irrelevant where liability is vicarious. [Why is a retail store’s notice of the dangerous condition a crucial issue where no independent contractor is involved, but irrelevant when the cleaning is done by an independent contractor?]

 

, ,

NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A PLASTIC-MANUFACTURING FACILITY CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ODORS HAVE NOT CAUSED PHYSICAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE (ECONOMIC LOSS IS NOT SUFFICIENT); THE NOXIOUS ODORS DO SUPPORT A PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION EVEN THOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF PRIVATE CITIZENS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARE AFFECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this class action lawsuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, over a concurrence and partial dissent, determined (1) noxious odors emanating from defendant’s plastic-manufacturing facility are properly the subject of a private nuisance cause of action on behalf of a collective of individuals, and (2) the noxious odors are not a proper subject for a negligence cause of action because no tangible physical harm or property damage was alleged (diminution in property value is not enough):

“‘To recover in negligence [or gross negligence], a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct . . . This limitation serves a number of important purposes: it defines the class of persons who actually possess a cause of action, provides a basis for the factfinder to determine whether a litigant actually possesses a claim, and protects court dockets from being clogged with frivolous and unfounded claims'” … .

“Although [the] defendant undoubtedly owes surrounding property owners a duty of care to avoid injuring them . . . , the question is whether [the] plaintiff[s] sustained the required injury” … . “‘[T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of [the] plaintiff[s’] property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law'” … . * * *

“‘The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: (1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failing to act'” … . …

A private nuisance cause of action is one where “[t]he rights invaded . . . are not suffered by the [plaintiffs] in their status as citizens or part of the public” … . Rather, the harm is suffered by the plaintiffs “in their private capacity in respect of an interference with the comfortable enjoyment of their homes,” which does not become a public nuisance “merely because a considerable number are injured” … . Dudley v API Indus., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07379, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Noxious odors do not support a negligence cause of action because there is no physical injury of property damage (diminished property value is not enough).

Practice Point: Noxious odors support a private nuisance cause of action, even where a large number of private citizens are affected.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT REHABILITATION FACILITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-RELATED INFECTION AND DEATH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suit against defendant rehabilitation facility alleging plaintiff’s decedent was infected with COVID at the facility, causing her death, should have been dismissed. The defendant facility was immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [T]he EDTPA initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services as long as three conditions were met: [1] the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; [2] the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives; and [3] the services were arranged or provided in good faith” … . * * *

The defendant’s submissions, including, inter alia, its various COVID-19 pandemic-related policies and protocols, the directives issued by the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Health and Human Services, and the decedent’s medical records, conclusively established that the defendant was entitled to immunity as the three requirements for immunity under the EDTPA were satisfied (see Public Health Law former § 3082[1] …). Costiera v MMR Care Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 07373, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for the COVID-related immunity afforded health care facilities pursuant to the EDTPA.​

Similar issues and result in Byington v North Sea Assoc., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07372, Second Dept 12-31-25

 

, ,

DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THE AREA OF THE FALL TO PLAINTIFF TENANT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECURRING COLLECTION OF WATER AND ICE IN THE AREA OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by defendant landlord in this icy-sidewalk slip and fall case failed to eliminate questions of fact about whether defendant had completely relinquished to the plaintiff responsibility for snow and ice removal in the area of the fall and whether defendant had actual knowledge of the depression in the sidewalk and the formation of ice in the area of the fall:

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant demonstrated that the defendant lived at the property where the plaintiff’s accident occurred. Additionally, at his deposition, the defendant testified that the garbage cans for both sides of the property, which he maintained, were located on the plaintiff’s side of the property and that he approached the garbage cans several times per week both to place trash in the garbage cans and to bring the garbage cans to the street for collection. Moreover, photographs submitted by the defendant depicting the area where the plaintiff fell demonstrated that the garbage cans were stored within a few feet of that area. Although the lease stated that the plaintiff was responsible for cleaning any accumulated snow from the entryway outside his private entrance, the lease also stated that the defendant was required to provide the plaintiff with a shovel and salt to complete this task. Finally, although the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he took care of snow removal for the area where he fell, his son testified at his deposition that in December 2018, approximately one month before the plaintiff’s accident, the defendant had, on a few occasions, placed salt on ice in that area.

… Although the defendant denied knowing about the condition or having any conversations with the plaintiff about this condition, at his deposition, the plaintiff testified that prior to the accident, he had told the defendant “[f]our to five times” about the allegedly defective section of the side yard walkway, including that ice and snow would accumulate there in the winter. Moreover, several of the photographs submitted by the defendant depicted an accumulation of ice and snow in the allegedly defective area where the plaintiff fell. Yongxi Li v Pei Xing Huang, 2025 NY Slip Op 07432, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Consult this slip-and-fall decision for succinct explanations of the law concerning the responsibility for snow and ice removal as between a resident landlord and a tenant, as well as a landlord’s actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition.

 

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