You are here: / Negligence

CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THE CROSSWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED OF A SLIP AND FALL DEFENDANT TO WIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant city demonstrated that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the black ice in the crosswalk where plaintiff slipped and fell. The decision illustrates the level of proof necessary for a defendant’s successful summary judgment motion in a slip and fall case:

The City established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on “black ice,” while crossing a cleared crosswalk, eight days after there was a snowfall of about 20 inches. The City submitted evidence showing it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the black ice that allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall, including deposition testimony from a Department of Sanitation supervisor detailing the City’s extensive snow and ice removal efforts in the area of the accident in the days preceding the accident. The City also submitted climatological records showing temperature fluctuations above and below freezing in the two days before the date of the accident, and freezing temperatures in the hours immediately preceding plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the City demonstrated that it would be speculative to conclude that it caused or had sufficient time to remedy the subject icy condition… . The City further showed lack of constructive notice by submitting plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the crosswalk appeared to have been cleared for safe crossing and that she did not observe the black ice until after she fell … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. She provided no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the black ice in the crosswalk, which she admittedly did not see. Plaintiff also failed to provide any nonspeculative basis for finding that the City’s snow clearing efforts were negligent or that they exacerbated the dangerous conditions that were created by the blizzard… . The opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the City should have checked the crosswalk twice daily for possible “thaw and refreeze,” was unsupported by reference to any authority, standard, or other corroborating evidence … . Pena v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03477, First Dept 5-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THE CROSSWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED OF A SLIP AND FALL DEFENDANT TO WIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THE CROSSWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED OF A SLIP AND FALL DEFENDANT TO WIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE, EXACERBATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE IN THE CROSSWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED OF A SLIP AND FALL DEFENDANT TO WIN SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING TANDEM RIDING AND SPINNING THE TUBES IN ICY CONDITIONS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS SNOW-TUBING INJURY CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, asserting assumption of the risk, was properly denied in this snow-tubing injury case. Apparently plaintiff went over a berm and collided with a padded pole. There was a triable issue of fact whether allowing plaintiff and her daughters to ride tandem and spinning their tubes, under icy conditions, unreasonably increased the risk:

… [P]laintiff primarily relied on the deposition testimony of her companion and the project manager to argue that the weather and the condition of the lanes and snow berms on the day in question were such that spinning and in tandem tubing were contraindicated and, therefore, should not have been allowed. In particular, plaintiff’s companion testified that she walked from plaintiff’s lane to the pole with which plaintiff collided and found the terrain to be “[i]cy” and “hard.” Additionally, based on his examination of the glare and shadows in the photographs taken on the day of the accident, the project manager testified that the lanes and snow berms appeared “icy” and that the lanes were “probably getting a bit frozen over” and “fast.” He stated that when the lanes “iced up” and became too fast, the lane safety attendants at the bottom of the hill were supposed to either cut down the number of tubers that were permitted to ride together or prohibit tandem riding altogether. He further stated that he had previously observed snow tubers leave their lanes as a result of being spun. In our view, the foregoing proof, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff … , raises a factual issue as to whether the risk of injury was unreasonably increased by the actions of the lane attendants — namely, allowing plaintiff and her daughters to ride tandem and spinning their tubes prior to their descent — under the particular weather and terrain conditions at the time of plaintiff’s injury … . Thompson v Windham Mtn. Partners, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03415, Third Dept 5-10-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, SNOW TUBING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING TANDEM RIDING AND SPINNING THE TUBES IN ICY CONDITIONS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS SNOW-TUBING INJURY CASE (THIRD DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (SNOW TUBING, ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, SNOW TUBING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING TANDEM RIDING AND SPINNING THE TUBES IN ICY CONDITIONS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS SNOW-TUBING INJURY CASE (THIRD DEPT))/SNOW TUBING (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, SNOW TUBING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING TANDEM RIDING AND SPINNING THE TUBES IN ICY CONDITIONS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS SNOW-TUBING INJURY CASE (THIRD DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant village’s motion for summary judgment in this parking lot ice and snow slip and fall case was properly denied. The village demonstrated that it did not have written notice of the dangerous condition, but did not demonstrate it did not created the dangerous condition, which plaintiff alleged resulted from the piling of snow in the area:

In the complaint and bill of particulars, the plaintiffs alleged that the Village created the ice condition on which Seegers fell by plowing snow into large piles directly adjacent to parking areas and walkways, thereby blocking drains and allowing the snow to thaw and refreeze, and by failing to properly salt or sand the area … . Accordingly, the Village was required to demonstrate both that it did not have prior written notice of the ice condition in the subject parking lot and that it did not create that condition… .

Although the Village demonstrated that it did not receive written notice of an ice condition in the subject parking lot prior to the accident, it failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not create the ice condition that allegedly caused Seegers to fall … . Seegers v Village of Mineola, 2018 NY Slip Op 03387, Second Dept 5-9-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW,  ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s request for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Petitioner’s car collided with a car, driven by Cedeno, when Cedeno crossed into on-coming traffic after running over a half-open manhole and losing control. Cedeno had served a timely notice of claim upon the city. The Second Department determined the city had timely notice of the essential facts of the petitioner’s claim:

While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative … , whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance … . The public corporation must have “knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim,” and not merely some general knowledge that a wrong has been committed … . A petitioner’s lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is not necessarily fatal when weighed against other relevant factors … .

The petitioner … demonstrated that the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim by way of the timely notice of claim served upon it by Cedeno … . Cedeno’s notice of claim specifically described the nature of the accident between Cedeno and the petitioner. Inasmuch as the City acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts of the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner made an initial showing that the City was not prejudiced by her delay in serving a notice of claim … . Matter of Tejada v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03370, Second Dept 5-9-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the school (District) was properly granted. Petitioner had timely filed a notice of claim against the village, and the school was aware of the essential facts of the claim within the 90-day filing period. Petitioner alleged her son, who had broken his arm, was not supervised or assisted by the school at the time he tripped, fell and further injured his arm:

Here, the District had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within the statutory period … . Furthermore, the petitioners made an initial showing that the District would not suffer any substantial prejudice by the delay, and the District failed to rebut the petitioners’ showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … . Even if the petitioners’ reason for failing to timely serve the District was not reasonable, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and the absence of prejudice … . Matter of D.D. v Village of Great Neck, 2018 NY Slip Op 03358, Second Dept 5-9-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW,  LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/STUDENTS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))

,

RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this elevator-door injury case should not have been granted. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied and the plaintiff presented evidence the elevators doors had been malfunctioning for months:

… [P]laintiff was injured when the elevator door in defendant’s building unexpectedly closed on him as he attempted to enter the elevator. Contrary to the finding of the motion court, the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable under the circumstances presented since plaintiff testified that the elevator door, which was closed by electronic sensors and did not have rubber safety bumpers, suddenly and unexpectedly closed … .

In addition, plaintiff testified that the elevator door was malfunctioning for several months and proferred an affidavit by a tenant who averred to the elevator doors malfunctioning. This is sufficient evidence of constructive notice to defeat defendant’s showing that the elevator was regularly maintained … . Lilly v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03314, First Dept 5-8-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATORS, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATORS (NEGLIGENCE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (NEGLIGENCE, ELEVATORS, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The plaintiff’s affidavit and the accident report indicated that, after traveling through a puddle of water, the defendant’s bus slid, hit a wall and then rolled into the middle lane, striking plaintiff’s bus.  The complaint alleged the driver of defendant’s bus was travelling too fast for the conditions. The court noted that a plaintiff no longer needs to demonstrate the absence of comparative negligence to be awarded summary judgment on liability. The court rejected the emergency defense because defendant driver had acknowledged in the accident report he was aware the roads were wet and slippery. The court further found that the defendant’s affidavit, in which he stated he did not observe any wet or slippery conditions before the accident ,”appears to have been submitted to avoid the consequences of his prior admission . . . and, thus, is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit in which he swore that the road was wet and slippery, that puddles had formed, and that the driver of defendants’ bus was traveling at too fast a rate of speed under these circumstances, lost control, and struck plaintiff’s bus in the neighboring lane. In defendants’ accident report, relied on by plaintiff before the motion court and by defendants in their appellate brief, the driver of defendants’ bus stated that, as he drove over a puddle of water, the back wheels “beg[a]n to slide and the bus hit the wall and rolled into the middle lane,” striking plaintiff’s bus. Together, plaintiff’s affidavit, and defendants’ accident report, the authenticity and accuracy of which are not disputed, established plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendant driver submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that he was operating his bus at a reasonable speed “considering the conditions then existing.” At the same time, he did not deny that the roads were wet and slippery, but claimed that he did not “observe any accumulation of water or other slippery roadway condition,” even though in his accident report he admitted to having driven over a puddle. Martinez v WE Transp. Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03311, First Dept 5-8-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case was properly denied. Although the defendant, under the administrative code of NYC, did not have a duty to remove ice and snow from the site of the fall, it did undertake to do so. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, the defendant must present proof it did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition:

… [Defendant] failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it did not cause, create, or exacerbate the icy condition after it undertook to clean the sidewalk during the winter storm. Neither the testimony of the property’s caretaker nor the affidavit of the supervisor of caretakers’s indicates that they inspected the location before the accident and saw that it was properly treated with salt or sand … . Maynard-Keeler v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03322, First Dept 5-8-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ICE AND SNOW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SLIP AND FALL,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant Buffalo Auto Rental (BAR) was estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle in which plaintiff, a passenger, was injured. Although the driver’s (Mayfield’s) mother (Julie Robertson) had purchased the car and had insured it, it was still had BAR’s registration plates on it at the time of the accident. The court noted that BAR’s summary judgment motion papers included Mayfield’s deposition testimony in which Mayfield claimed he was driving fast to escape another driver who was acting aggressively. The testimony raised a question of fact about the availability of the emergency defense, precluding summary judgment on the issue of Mayfield’s negligence without the need to consider the opposing papers:

… [T]he court properly determined that BAR was estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle as a matter of law. Even assuming, arguendo, that it was the intention of BAR and Robertson that Robertson was to be the legalowner of the vehicle after she executed the bill of sale and took physical possession of the vehicle … , we conclude that the issue of legal ownership is not determinative. “Whether or not [BAR] was still the owner of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident need not be determined; [BAR], having left [its] registration plates on the motor vehicle, is estopped to deny [its] ownership” as against plaintiff … . Contrary to BAR’s contention, the fact that Robertson had obtained insurance for the vehicle does not mandate a different result inasmuch as the public policy reasons for the estoppel doctrine are not limited to issues of insurance coverage … . White v Mayfield, 2018 NY Slip Op 03270, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REGISTRATION PLATES, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/REGISTRATION PLATES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLES (OWNERSHIP, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town’s motion for summary judgment in this snowplow-car accident case should have been granted. Even though the plow was up at the time of the accident, the Vehicle and Traffic Law “reckless disregard” standard applied, and the snowplow driver’s (Hanssen’s) actions did not amount to “reckless disregard:”

… [D]efendants established as a matter of law that the reckless disregard standard of care, and not negligence, is applicable to this case pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of Hanssen, who testified that he was plowing snow and salting the roads on his assigned route at the time of the accident, and section 1103 (b) applies where, as here, a snowplow truck is “actually engaged in work on a highway” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, although defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiffs that the plow blade was up at the time of the accident, that is not enough to raise an issue of fact inasmuch as it was uncontroverted that Hanssen was salting the road and was “working his run’ or beat’ at the time of the accident” … . …

Hanssen testified at his deposition that he slowed down as he approached the stop sign and was moving at a speed of five miles per hour just prior to the intersection. He looked both ways for traffic, but did not see plaintiffs’ approaching vehicle. That evidence, which was not controverted by the deposition testimony of plaintiffs, established that Hanssen did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Harris v Hanssen, 2018 NY Slip Op 03257, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SNOWPLOWS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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