You are here: / Negligence
,

ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT ALERT CITY TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIM IN THIS FIRE TRUCK TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AND THE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IN SEEKING TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE, WAS INSUFFICIENT, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim in this fire truck traffic accident case was properly denied. The accident report did not alert the city to the essential facts of the action, the motion was not timely made, and the excuse, law office failure, was insufficient:

The police accident report and the letter from petitioner’s counsel  … were inadequate to provide the City with actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim against it. These documents failed to alert the City to the petitioner’s claim that she had been seriously injured as a result of the motor vehicle accident … . … Furthermore, the notice of claim, served upon the City almost 2 months after the 90-day statutory period had expired, was served too late to provide the City with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the 90-day statutory period had expired … . …

The petitioner’s delay in serving the notice of claim upon the City was the result of law office failure, which is not a sufficient excuse … . The petitioner proffered no excuse for the delay between the time the City disallowed the claim and the commencement of this proceeding … . In addition, the petitioner presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that her delay in serving a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the City in defending against the petitioner’s claim on the merits … . Matter of Naar v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03683, Second Dept 5-23-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT ALERT CITY TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIM IN THIS FIRE TRUCK TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AND THE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IN SEEKING TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE, WAS INSUFFICIENT, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT ALERT CITY TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIM IN THIS FIRE TRUCK TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AND THE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IN SEEKING TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE, WAS INSUFFICIENT, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT ALERT CITY TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CLAIM IN THIS FIRE TRUCK TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AND THE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IN SEEKING TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE, WAS INSUFFICIENT, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court used the wrong criteria for analyzing whether plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ child was seriously injured in a game at school which was supervised by teachers. In 2016 the Court of Appeals (Matter of Newcomb) held that a plaintiff must make an initial showing that the school would not be prejudiced by a late notice, then the school must come forward with evidence it would be prejudiced. Supreme Court had analyzed the criteria under the existing law at the time, which was changed by Matter of Newcomb. The Second Department found, under the Matter of Newcomb criteria, plaintiffs had presented sufficient proof of a lack of prejudice to shift the burden to the school. The matter was remitted for analysis under the current law:

The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from the infant plaintiff’s father in which he averred that he received a call from school personnel informing him about his child’s injury and requesting his presence at the school. When the father arrived at the school minutes later, he observed an assistant principal, two security guards, the school nurse, and New York City Fire Department personnel attending to the situation and the injuries of his daughter. At that time, the infant plaintiff’s father was informed that his daughter was playing a game with other children wherein they were jumping on each other’s backs. He also learned that this activity occurred under the supervision of three or four teachers, two of whom were named in his affidavit. The infant plaintiff was transported by ambulance from the school to the hospital. The infant plaintiff allegedly fractured the tibia and fibula of her right leg, and underwent surgery as a result of her injuries. Given the evidence of the number of school personnel attending to the situation, the reporting of the incident to the infant plaintiff’s father, and the seriousness of the alleged injuries, the plaintiffs argued that a number of reports would likely have been prepared, and that such reports were in the possession of the defendants. Under certain circumstances, this Court has recognized that the “existence of reports in [a defendant’s] own files concerning . . . facts and circumstances'”of an incident may be “the functional equivalent of an investigation” … . …

Given that Matter of Newcomb was decided during the pendency of this appeal, and since the Supreme Court relied upon this Court’s prior authority, which had placed the sole burden on the plaintiffs to show that the defendants were not substantially prejudiced by the delay in filing, the defendants did not have an opportunity to submit evidence to make their particularized evidentiary showing in the manner set forth in Matter of Newcomb. The court, therefore, did not have the opportunity to weigh such evidence in consideration of the plaintiffs’ motion. N.F. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03663, Second Dept 5-23-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NOTICE OF CLAIM, SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE SUPERVISION, SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM,  SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE SUPERVISION, SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school district’s motion to set aside the verdict for legal insufficiency should have been granted. Plaintiff assistant principal sued the district after she was injured breaking up a fight between students. She had previously been injured by a student and had complained that more security was needed on the floor where she was hurt. The Second Department explained that plaintiff could not recover unless a special relationship with the school district had been proven:

On a legal sufficiency challenge, whether made pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case or pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict, the relevant inquiry is whether there is any rational process by which the trier of fact could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Absent the existence of a special relationship between the defendants and the injured plaintiff, liability may not be imposed on the defendants for the breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system and members of the public … . A special relationship can be formed, inter alia, if the defendants voluntarily assumed a special duty to the injured plaintiff upon which she justifiably relied … . In order to succeed on this theory, the plaintiffs were required to establish four elements: (1) an assumption by the defendants, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured plaintiff; (2) knowledge on the part of defendants’ agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the defendants’ agents and the injured plaintiff; and (4) the injured plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the defendants’ affirmative undertaking … . Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 03673, Second Dept 5-23-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE  (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (SET ASIDE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined claimant’s wrongful death action was properly dismissed because claimant failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Court of Claims Act and commenced the claim before the appointment of an administrator of her son’s estate:

” [B]ecause suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed'”… . Court of Claims Act § 10(3) provides that a claim to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of a state employee must be filed within 90 days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant within such time serves a written notice of intention to file a claim, in which event the claim must be filed within two years after the accrual of the claim … . Court of Claims Act § 10(2) provides that a wrongful death claim must be filed within 90 days after the appointment of an executor or administrator of a decedent, unless the claimant within such time serves a written notice of intention to file a claim, in which event the claim must be filed within two years after the death of the decedent … .

Here, neither the claim nor the notice of intention to file a claim was filed within 90 days after the accrual of the personal injury claim, and thus, the personal injury claim was not timely. Moreover, since the claim was commenced prior to the claimant’s appointment as administrator of her son’s estate, she failed to comply with the requirements for commencing a wrongful death claim … . The failures to strictly comply with Court of Claims Act § 10(2) and (3) were jurisdictional defects compelling dismissal of the claim … . Kiesow v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03670, Second Dept 5-23-18

​COURT OF CLAIMS (FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF INTENT (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE CLAIM BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the writing and execution requirements for an out-of-court stipulation of settlement were not met by an e-mail sent by the defendant in a slip and fall case:

To be enforceable, a stipulation of settlement must conform to the criteria set forth in CPLR 2104 … . Where, as in the instant case, counsel for the parties did not enter into a settlement in open court, an “agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action . . . is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney” … . The plain language of CPLR 2104 requires that “the agreement itself must be in writing, signed by the party (or attorney) to be bound” … . An email message may be considered “subscribed” as required by CPLR 2104, and, therefore, capable of enforcement, where it “contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature” … .

Here, the email confirming the settlement agreement was sent by counsel for the party seeking to enforce the agreement, [defendant]. There is no email subscribed by the plaintiff, who is the party to be charged, or by her former attorney. In the absence of a writing subscribed by the plaintiff or her attorney, the settlement agreement is unenforceable against the plaintiff … . Kataldo v Atlantic Chevrolet Cadillac, 2018 NY Slip Op 03669, Second Dept 5-23-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/SETTLEMENT, STIPULATION OF (EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2014 (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))

BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a case remitted after reversal by the Ct. of Appeals, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this vehicle accident case. Plaintiff was injured when a sanitation truck, which was backing up, slid on ice and hit a parked car. which in turn struck plaintiff. Initially the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied because the plaintiff did not demonstrate freedom from comparative fault. The Ct. of Appeals reversed, holding that plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to be entitled to summary judgment.  On remittal the First Department held that striking a parked vehicle is prima facie evidence of negligence and plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was granted:

It was Ramos’s [the driver] and Carter’s [the employee guiding the driver] responsibility to take into account weather and road conditions and to tailor their actions accordingly to avoid collisions … . The record demonstrates that the truck hit the parked car either because Ramos reacted to an abrupt hand signal from Carter and hit the brakes while he was driving on ice, causing a skid he could not abate, or because Ramos failed to adequately respond to Carter’s directives. Whether there were chains on the tires or not, defendant’s employees were obligated to maintain control of the truck and to avoid collisions with parked cars while backing up, and were negligent in failing to do so … . Rodriguez v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03634, First Dept 5-22-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/PARKED CARS (NEGLIGENCE, BACKING INTO A PARKED CAR IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHEN THE PARKED CAR WAS PUSHED INTO HIM, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant driver’s testimony in a deposition, which contradicted the accident report and the MV-104 form, did not create a question of fact and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The accident report and MV-104 form indicated defendant driver was in the process of making a left turn when plaintiff, who was in the oncoming lane, collided with defendant. In the deposition, defendant testified he had not yet started to turn when the accident happened:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, the operator of a vehicle intending to turn left within an intersection must yield the right-of-way to any oncoming vehicle which is within the intersection or so close to it as to constitute an immediate hazard … . A violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se … . The operator of an oncoming vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing operator will yield in compliance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 when he made a left turn directly into the path of the plaintiff’s scooter when it was not reasonably safe to do so, and that this violation was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . In opposition to the motion, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver testified at his deposition that, at the time of the occurrence, his taxi had not entered the intersection, was stopped, and was facing straight ahead. This testimony reflects a belated attempt to avoid the consequences of his earlier admissions in the police accident report and the MV-104 accident report that he was in the process of making a left turn, by raising a feigned issue of fact which was insufficient to defeat the motion … . In particular, the MV-104 form, which was prepared and signed by the defendant, expressly stated that the defendant was proceeding to make a left turn onto eastbound Park Avenue when the collision occurred. Lebron v Mensah, 2018 NY Slip Op 03521, Second Dept 5-16-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (ILLEGAL LEFT TURN, DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the out-of-possession landlord (Bagga) was properly granted summary judgment in this slip and fall case:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell at the entrance of a grocery store operated by the defendant 63-28 99th St. Farm Ltd., located on premises owned by the defendant Dasshan S. Bagga. …

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, where the complaint sounds in common-law negligence and the plaintiff does not allege the violation of a statute, Bagga demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by establishing that he was an out-of-possession landlord who was not bound by contract or course of conduct to maintain the premises… . The mere reservation of a right to reenter the premises to make repairs does not impose an obligation on the landlord to maintain the premises … . Fuzaylova v 63-28 99th St. Farm Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 03506, Second Dept 5-16-18

​NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, SLIP AND FALL, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD (SLIP AND FALL, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT,  OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ gross negligence cause of action and demand for punitive damages should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged the defendant insurer (State Farm) and the defendant engineering firm (H2M) were grossly negligent in supervising the remediation of oil contamination on plaintiffs’ property. The Second Department noted that the causes of action in the amended complaint related back to the allegations in the original complaint and were not, therefore time-barred:

The Supreme Court should not have granted those branches of State Farm’s and H2M’s motions which were to dismiss the cause of action alleging gross negligence insofar as asserted against each of them. As the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proven as to the gross negligence causes of action, those causes of action related back to the date of timely filing of the original complaint … .

The amended complaint stated a viable gross negligence cause of action as against State Farm and H2M. Gross negligence “differs in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” … . “To constitute gross negligence, a party’s conduct must smack[ ] of intentional wrongdoing’ or evince[ ] a reckless indifference to the rights of others'”… .. Generally, the question of gross negligence is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact… .

The allegations, inter alia, that State Farm and H2M greatly exacerbated the existing damage to the property by causing the spread of the existing contamination and by directing the backfilling of areas of the property after leaving in place significant existing contamination are sufficient to support a gross negligence cause of action … . Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03499, Second Dept 5-16-18

​NEGLIGENCE (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK, GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK (AMENDED COMPLAINT, GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant attorneys failed to demonstrate plaintiffs suffered no damages in this legal malpractice action. Plaintiffs alleged defendants delayed in evicting plaintiffs’ tenants resulting in $500,000 in lost rent. Defendants, in their motion for summary judgment, alleged only that plaintiffs’ damages were speculative, which merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof and is never enough for an award of summary judgment:

The defendants failed to submit evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiffs are unable to prove at least one essential element of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice … . The defendants’ styling of the plaintiffs’ damages theory as “speculative” was merely an effort to point out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof, which was insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden as the party moving for summary judgment … .

Moreover, even if the plaintiffs’ damages cannot be precisely calculated at this stage, expenses to the client resulting from attorney delays are deemed to be ascertainable damages in connection with a legal malpractice cause of action … . Iannucci v Kucker & Bruh, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 03514, Second Dept 5-16-18

​ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE,  DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (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