You are here: / Negligence
, ,

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))

,

A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town’s motion for summary judgment in this tree-fall accident should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged a tree near the roadway fell on the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger:

Municipalities have a duty to maintain their roadways in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to trees adjacent to the road which could pose a danger to travelers … . Municipalities also possess a common-law duty to inspect trees adjacent to their roadways … .

Here, the Town did not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because it failed to demonstrate that it met its duty to inspect and maintain the subject tree, or that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the tree … . Schillaci v Town of Islip, 2018 NY Slip Op 05070, Second Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TREES, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))/TREES (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS AND ROADS, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, TREES, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town, owner-operator of a skating rink, did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether it provided proper supervision at the rink. Therefore there was a question of fact whether the doctrine of assumption of the risk applied. Plaintiff alleged she was pushed to the ice by an unruly skater:

Participants in sports or recreational activities “will not be deemed to have assumed . . . unreasonably increased risks” … . “Thus, where reckless behavior that is over and above the usual dangers inherent in the activity of skating is claimed to have caused the injury, the issue of whether the proprietor was negligent in supervising the skaters turns on whether the proprietor had sufficient notice of the allegedly reckless conduct so as to permit it to prevent the injury through the exercise of adequate supervision” … . “The duration and nature of the allegedly reckless conduct are factors that bear on this issue” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the action was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk … . The defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the risk was unreasonably increased by the defendant’s alleged failure to properly supervise the skaters such that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk would not apply … . Laurent v Town of Oyster Bay, 2018 NY Slip Op 05028, Second Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/ICE SKATING (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (ICE-SKATING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ICE-SKATING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))/SUPERVISION (NEGLIGENCE, ICE-SKATING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT))

THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a grassy path used to walk from a parking lot to a school building constituted a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. The path had been cleared of ice and snow by a custodian but the plaintiff described the path as wet and muddy, as opposed to having ice and snow on it. There was a paved walkway to the school and there was testimony the grassy path should not have been cleared of snow:

“As the party seeking summary judgment, defendant bore the initial burden of demonstrating that it had maintained the property in a reasonably safe condition and that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the specific allegedly dangerous condition that resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . To that end, “the scope of a landowner’s duty is measured in terms of foreseeability” … . “Foreseeability of risk is an essential element of a fault-based negligence cause of action because the community deems a person at fault only when the injury-producing occurrence is one that could have been anticipated” … .

Here, the evidence shows that defendant created the path on which plaintiff fell and, therefore, the only valid inference is that it was foreseeable that people would use the path once it had been cleared… . Thus, defendant had a duty to maintain the path in a reasonably safe condition … . However, whether “a dangerous condition exists is generally a question for the jury” … , unless “only a single inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts” … . The deposition testimony established that defendant’s employee created the path, but there was no testimony regarding whether there was any additional maintenance. Also, although plaintiff testified that the path was wet and muddy, she could not recall if there was snow or ice on it. Therefore, a triable question of fact exists as to whether the path constituted a dangerous condition … . Ellis v Lansingburgh Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 05011, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))/FORESEEABILITY (SLIP AND FALL, THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT))

,

SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice-skating slip and fall case should not have been granted. The claimant could not assume the risk created by a negligently maintained ice surface, and claimant’s awareness of the dangerous condition relates only to the issue of comparative fault (which does not preclude summary judgment):

We … agree with claimant that her claim is not barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. It is well settled that “[a claimant] will not be held to have assumed those risks that are not inherent . . . , i.e., not ordinary and necessary in the sport” … . Although the risk of falling while ice skating is ” inherent in and arise[s] out of the nature of the sport generally’ ” … , we conclude that skating on a negligently maintained ice surface is not a risk that is inherent in the sport. Contrary to defendant’s contention, under the circumstances presented here, claimant’s awareness of the poor ice conditions and her decision to continue skating for some period of time, apparently to have a photograph taken, relate only to the issue of her comparative fault, if any … . Wyzykowski v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04875, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ICE SKATING (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (ICE SKATING, (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (ICE SKATING, SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for battery alleging a medical procedure was performed without her consent:

“It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . Here, in moving under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), defendants attached all of the pleadings, which alleged, inter alia, that defendants “performed a procedure upon the Plaintiff while she was under general anesthesia without informing her or obtaining any consent, which conduct constituted a battery upon her.” Defendants also referenced and provided to the court the informed consent form executed by plaintiff that explicitly authorized the performance of a flexible sigmoidoscopy, but not a colonoscopy. The form further noted in relevant part that, “[i]f any unforeseen condition arises during the procedure calling for, in the physician’s judgment, additional procedures, treatments, or operations, [defendant is] authorize[d] . . . to do whatever he . . . deems advisable.” We conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a cause of action sounding in battery by alleging that she provided no consent to the performance of a colonoscopy … , and that the evidentiary submissions considered by the court, including the consent form, do not “establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action” sounding in battery … . McCarthy v Shah, 2018 NY Slip Op 04887, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/BATTERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))

,

CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city’s motion for summary judgment in this crosswalk pedestrian accident case should have been granted. The city had assigned a school crossing guard for the crosswalk where infant plaintiff was struck by a school bus, but the guard had called in sick that day. The First Department held the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a special relationship with the city:

In order to establish that the City voluntarily assumed a duty, plaintiffs have the burden of showing: (1) an assumption by the City’s agents, through promises or action, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of plaintiffs; (2) knowledge on the part of the City’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the City’s agents and plaintiffs; and (4) justifiable reliance by plaintiffs… . Here, the record shows that no special duty existed between the City and plaintiffs before the accident. There was no direct contact between the City’s agents and plaintiffs, and the facts that the school crossing guard greeted infant plaintiffs and the children relied upon the crossing guard’s instructions when the guard was at the intersection before the accident is insufficient to create a special duty. Ivan D. v Little Richie Bus Serv. Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04823, First Dept 6-28-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CROSSWALKS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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