You are here: / Negligence
, ,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action against the municipality was timely commenced. The one-year-and-ninety-day statute of limitations was tolled when plaintiff filed a successful motion for leave to file a late notice of claim:

Pursuant to General Municipal Law, a plaintiff must first serve a notice of claim against a municipality within 90 days after the claim arises … and commence any subsequent tort action against the municipality within one year and 90 days after the claim arises (see General Municipal Law § 50-i). Because plaintiff’s claims against defendants, if any, arise from the fire that occurred on February 18, 2014, he was therefore required to file and serve a notice of claim by May 19, 2014 and commence any subsequent tort action by May 19, 2015. Having failed to file and serve his notice of claim by May 19, 2014, plaintiff was permitted to, and did, commence a special proceeding seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. While the applicable one year and 90-day statute of limitations began to run on February 18, 2014, upon plaintiff’s commencement of the proceeding, the provisions of CPLR 204 (a) operated to toll the remainder of the statute of limitations until the date that the court granted the requested relief, at which point the statute began to run once again … . To put it in mathematical terms, when plaintiff commenced the proceeding seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim on November 14, 2014, he had 186 days remaining in order to timely commence this action within the applicable statute of limitations. As of that date, the statute of limitations stopped running and did not resume until May 27, 2015, when Supreme Court issued its order granting plaintiff’s application. Thus, plaintiff had 186 days running from May 27, 2015 or until November 29, 2015 to timely commence this action. Since plaintiff commenced this action on October 20, 2015, it was timely commenced and may now proceed to a determination as to whether it has any merit. Kulon v Liberty Fire Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 04062, Third Dept 6-7-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM,, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no special relationship between the town and the plaintiffs. The town had allowed fill to be dumped near a stream (Normanskill) by issuing a permit to the property owner, 165 Salisbury Road LLC. A landslide occurred which caused flooding on plaintiffs’ property:

To establish that a municipality created a special relationship by voluntarily assuming a duty, a plaintiff must show: “(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) the party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking”… . Plaintiffs failed to allege any assumption by the Town to act on their behalf, any direct contact between them and any agent of the Town or any justifiable reliance by plaintiffs … .

As for the third way of forming a special relationship, the municipality must not only assume positive direction or control when a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation exists, but must “affirmatively act to place the plaintiff in harm’s way,” through words or conduct that “induc[e] the plaintiff to embark on a dangerous course he or she would otherwise have avoided” … . Although we recently held that Normanskill and 165 Salisbury Road alleged a special relationship with the Town on this basis … , the alleged safety violation existed on property owned or leased by those parties. They were in a markedly different position than plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are removed from the Normanskill property that was directly affected by the fill and permit activities, and the complaint contains no allegations that plaintiffs were even aware of, or had contact with any of the parties involved in, those activities. The allegations provide no indication of how plaintiffs could have been induced by the Town to embark on any course of action, let alone a dangerous one that they would otherwise have avoided … . Szydlowski v Town of Bethlehem, 2018 NY Slip Op 04066, Third Dept 6-7-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/LANDSLIDES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/FLOODING  (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOWN, TOWN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY LANDSLIDE (THIRD DEPT))

,

STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the state was properly held 100% liable in this fatal motorcycle-truck collision case. The truck driver testified that he looked both ways and didn’t see the motorcycle before pulling out into the motorcycle’s lane of traffic. There had been 14 right-angle collisions at this intersection. The state started but never finished an investigation into whether safety measures should be implemented. The Court of Appeals held the plaintiff need not demonstrate the state could have timely made effective safety improvements, i.e., a four-way stop and/or a reduction of the speed limit. The fact that the truck driver violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law did not require the apportionment of some liability to the truck driver:

The State agrees it cannot invoke qualified immunity because it did not complete the safety study; therefore, ordinary rules of negligence apply … . The State has a nondelegable duty to keep its roads reasonably safe … , and the State breaches that duty “when [it] is made aware of a dangerous highway condition and does not take action to remedy it”… . A breach proximately causes harm if it is a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s injury … . * * *

We have never required accident victims to identify a specific remedy and prove it would have been timely implemented and prevented the accident. * * *

Here, there is record support for the finding that the State’s breach was a proximate cause of the accident. * * *

Once on notice of the dangerous condition, it was the State’s burden to take reasonable steps in a reasonable amount of time. Instead, it did nothing. That right-angle collisions would continue to occur absent the adoption of some safety measure is hardly surprising. “[T]he most significant inquiry in the proximate cause analysis is often that of foreseeability”… . Where, as here, the risk of harm created by the defendant corresponds to the harm that actually resulted, we cannot say that proximate cause is lacking as a matter of law. Brown v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04029, CtApp 6-7-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/COURT OF CLAIMS (INTERSECTION SAFETY, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/INTERSECTIONS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (INTERSECTIONS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INTERSECTIONS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTERSECTIONS,  STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))

, ,

CITY LIABLE FOR STABBING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN PARKING GARAGE, SECURITY INADEQUATE, HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, BUT CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD 100% LIABLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the city was properly found liable for the stabbing death of plaintiff’s decedent in a parking garage, but found that the city should not have been held 100% liable. Operating a parking garage is a proprietary function to which governmental immunity does not apply:

Contrary to the City’s contention, it was not entitled to governmental immunity for these claims, which arose out of the performance of proprietary functions. In that respect, the plaintiffs offered proof that the City failed in its capacity as a commercial owner of a public parking garage to meet the basic proprietary obligation of providing minimal security for its garage property … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs made out a prima facie case of negligence at trial, and the jury’s finding in this regard was not against the weight of the evidence. Under the circumstances of this case, in which the plaintiffs established that the City employed almost no security measures in the parking garage where the decedent was murdered, no expert testimony was necessary for the plaintiffs to establish that the City breached its duty to provide minimal security precautions to protect the patrons of the parking garage where the decedent was murdered … . Additionally, in light of the history of criminal activity in the parking garage, which included people being ambushed as they walked to their cars, as was the decedent in this case, the City should have been aware of the “likelihood of conduct on the part of third [parties]” that would “endanger the safety” of visitors to the garage … . …

… [T]he apportionment of 100% of the fault in the happening of the attack to the City was not supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence … . An apportionment of 65% of the fault to the defendant and 35% of the fault to the nonparty tortfeasor better reflects a fair interpretation of the evidence … . Granata v City of White Plains, 2018 NY Slip Op 03964, Second Dept 6-6-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY LIABLE FOR STABBING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN PARKING GARAGE, SECURITY INADEQUATE, HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD 100% LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ASSAULT, CITY LIABLE FOR STABBING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN PARKING GARAGE, SECURITY INADEQUATE, HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD 100% LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, ASSAULT, CITY LIABLE FOR STABBING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN PARKING GARAGE, SECURITY INADEQUATE, HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD 100% LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CITY LIABLE FOR STABBING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN PARKING GARAGE, SECURITY INADEQUATE, HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD 100% LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))/PARKING GARAGE (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY LIABLE FOR STABBING DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN PARKING GARAGE, SECURITY INADEQUATE, HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD 100% LIABLE (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school bus company and board of education did not have notice that two children who allegedly injured infant plaintiff on the bus were capable of dangerous conduct:

Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise children in their charge, and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . Schools are not, however, “insurers of [the] safety [of students] . . . for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students”… . A school bus operator owes the “very same duty to the students entrusted to its care and custody”… . In cases involving injury caused by the acts of fellow students, to establish a breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision, plaintiffs must show that school authorities had “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the [alleged] dangerous conduct” … .

\Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing evidence that they had no knowledge or notice of the infant perpetrators’ dangerous conduct, as there was no record of any inappropriate conduct by them, sexual or otherwise, prior to the incident … . Champagne v Lonero Tr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03959, Second Dept 6-6-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCHOOL BUSES  (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

BICYCLIST STRUCK BY SIDE OF TRUCK MAKING A LEFT TURN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff bicyclist was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff was struck by the passenger side door of a truck making a left turn:

While traveling on a bicycle, plaintiff collided with the passenger side of defendants’ northbound truck as it turned left into plaintiff’s path at the intersection of St. Nicholas Avenue and 155th Street in New York County. Plaintiff submitted evidence showing that defendant was negligent by making a left turn without ensuring that it was safe to do so (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141…).

Moreover, plaintiff is not required to demonstrate the absence of his own comparative fault to obtain partial summary judgment on defendant’s liability … .  Bermeo v Time Warner Entertainment Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03927, First Dept 6-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BICYCLIST STRUCK BY SIDE OF TRUCK MAKING A LEFT TURN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BICYCLIST STRUCK BY SIDE OF TRUCK MAKING A LEFT TURN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT))/BICYCLISTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BICYCLIST STRUCK BY SIDE OF TRUCK MAKING A LEFT TURN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE FAULT  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BICYCLIST STRUCK BY SIDE OF TRUCK MAKING A LEFT TURN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT (FIRST DEPT))

UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY ON A TRAMPOLINE WITH MULTIPLE JUMPERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Pennsylvania trampoline injury case was properly granted. Under Pennsylvania law, plaintiff assumed the risk of injury on the trampoline:

The record demonstrates conclusively that defendant cannot be held liable under Pennsylvania law for the injuries that plaintiff alleges she sustained while a guest at his Pennsylvania home when another guest jumping on a trampoline lost control and fell on her. A property owner may be held liable to “social guests,” as opposed to “business visitors” … , only if he “knows or has reason to know of the [dangerous] condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm” and “fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensees of the condition and the risk involved,” and the guests “do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved” … . Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and affidavit demonstrate that she understood the risks involved in using the trampoline, including the risks of using it with multiple jumpers. Ramos v Hamelburg, 2018 NY Slip Op 03913, First Dept 5-31-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY ON A TRAMPOLINE WITH MULTIPLE JUMPERS (FIRST DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (TRAMPOLINES, UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY ON A TRAMPOLINE WITH MULTIPLE JUMPERS (FIRST DEPT))/TRAMPOLINES (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY ON A TRAMPOLINE WITH MULTIPLE JUMPERS (FIRST DEPT))

,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL IN CROSSWALK DURING STORM, ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SNOW REMOVAL PROTOCOLS AND FAILURE TO APPLY SALT BEFORE THE STORM ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the city could not be held liable for a slip and fall in a crosswalk while a storm was in progress:

The certified expert report [plaintiff] submitted does not address how the City created or exacerbated the icy condition of the crosswalk and only states that it was created during the heavy snow falling when the accident happened … . Plaintiff’s claim that the City may be held liable for failing to adhere to its snow removal protocols is unpersuasive, because liability “cannot be based on the violation of an internal rule imposing a higher standard of care than the law, at least where there is no showing of detrimental reliance by the plaintiff” … . Nor can the City be held liable for failing to salt the roadway before the storm, because such alleged inaction does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence that caused, created or exacerbated the icy condition … . Mimikos v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03813, First Dept 5-29-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL IN CROSSWALK DURING STORM, ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SNOW REMOVAL PROTOCOLS AND FAILURE TO APPLY SALT BEFORE THE STORM ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL IN CROSSWALK DURING STORM, ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SNOW REMOVAL PROTOCOLS AND FAILURE TO APPLY SALT BEFORE THE STORM ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL IN CROSSWALK DURING STORM, ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SNOW REMOVAL PROTOCOLS AND FAILURE TO APPLY SALT BEFORE THE STORM ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT))/INTERNAL RULES (STANDARD OF CARE, SLIP AND FALL, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL IN CROSSWALK DURING STORM, ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SNOW REMOVAL PROTOCOLS AND FAILURE TO APPLY SALT BEFORE THE STORM ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT))

DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff soccer player had assumed the risk of injury resulting from a cleat on his shoe getting stuck in a drainage grate near the soccer field. The drainage grate was deemed open and obvious:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . “This principle extends to those risks associated with the construction of the playing field and any open and obvious condition thereon”… .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred the injured plaintiff’s recovery. The evidence submitted by the defendants included, inter alia, the pretrial testimony of the infant plaintiff that his accident occurred when he ran onto the drainage grate only a few feet from the edge of the field while he was retrieving a ball that had traveled out of bounds during the game. He further conceded that in order to gain access to the field, he had to walk over the silver-colored drainage grate that surrounded the perimeter of the field. Moreover, the photographs submitted in support of the motion confirmed the open and obvious nature of the grate, and there was no evidence that the grate was concealed or defective in any manner. O’Toole v Long Is. Jr. Soccer League, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03853, Second Dept 5-30-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK , DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (SOCCER, DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))/SOCCER (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))/SPORTS (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY RESULTING FROM HIS CLEAT GETTING STUCK IN THE GRATE (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the restaurant/bar’s (Hacienda’s) motion for summary judgment in this Dram Shop Act action was properly granted. Plaintiff, a passenger in a car driven by Behler, was injured when the driver struck a guardrail. The driver, who was under 21, had been served alcohol at Hacienda. General Obligations Law (GOL) 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act) prohibits serving alcohol to persons under 21. The Second Department held there is a knowledge element of GOL 11-101 and Hacienda demonstrated it’s employee did not know the driver was under 21:

In 1983, the Legislature supplemented the Dram Shop Act by adding General Obligation Law § 11-100, which applies to any provider unlawfully furnishing alcoholic beverages to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for minors. Pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1), it is unlawful to furnish an alcoholic beverage to any “person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years” … . “[L]iability under General Obligations Law § 11-100 may be imposed only on a person who knowingly causes intoxication by furnishing alcohol to (or assisting in the procurement of alcohol for) persons known or reasonably believed to be underage. While [General Obligations Law § ] 11-101 does not explicitly refer to knowledge, that same requirement must be inferred because the legislative history makes plain that section 11-100 was intended to parallel the Dram Shop Act” … . …

Hacienda established through the submission of the deposition testimony of its bartender that it did not have knowledge or reason to believe that the driver was under 21 years of age when it served alcoholic beverages to him. Ferber v Olde Erie Brew Pub & Grill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03827, Second Dept 5-30-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (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