You are here: / Negligence
,

DEFECT WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined that the defect which caused the claimant’s slip and fall was not trivial as a matter of law and there were questions of fact about the defendant’s constructive and actual notice of the defect. Claimant is incarcerated and the slip and fall occurred in a walkway at a correctional facility:​

In claimant’s deposition testimony, which defendant submitted in support of the motion, claimant testified that he was proceeding along a walkway from the housing area to the commissary. It had rained, and a large puddle of water had accumulated on the walkway. Claimant attempted to step over the flooded portion of the walkway, but his foot came down on a portion of the walkway that was cracked and damaged. The concrete shifted under his foot, causing him to lose his balance, and he fell. …​

We also agree with claimant that defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . In support of the motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of a correction officer who had worked at the prison for the prior 27 years. The correction officer averred that he was familiar with the walkway and its condition before claimant fell, that the concrete was broken and uneven, and that water can gather there after it rains, but he did not consider the condition to be dangerous. Furthermore, the correction officer averred that he periodically walked the premises to look for anything in need of repair, and claimant testified at his deposition that the walkway was cracked prior to his arrival at the prison and that it flooded every time it rained. Bennett v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04212, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFECT WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFECT WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL,  DEFECT WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))​

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated the driver’s (Gorman’s) negligence and was not required to show the absence of comparative negligence:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Michael Edwards (plaintiff) when he was struck by an ambulance driven by defendant Francine M. Gorman. At the time of the collision, plaintiff, a parking attendant, was tasked with instructing vehicles traveling in a two-lane, one-way “pass-through” road of the entrance loop of Strong Memorial Hospital on how to reach an alternate entrance for a nearby parking garage. Plaintiff was standing in the center of the pass-through road between the two lanes of travel, and Gorman struck him as she was slowing down for a stop sign at the end of the pass-through road. …

… [P]laintiffs were required to establish only that Gorman was negligent and that her negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. We conclude that plaintiffs met that burden by providing photographs, video footage and Gorman’s deposition testimony in which she admitted that she executed a wide turn through multiple lanes of the pass-through road, which constitutes a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) … . In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Although defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact with respect to plaintiff’s negligence, that is of no moment in the context of plaintiffs’ appeal. “To be entitled to partial summary judgment a plaintiff does not bear the double burden of establishing a prima facie case of defendant’s liability and the absence of his or her own comparative fault” … . Edwards v Gorman, 2018 NY Slip Op 04129, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff assumed the risk that his harness would become detached causing him to fall from defendant’s climbing wall:

The climbing wall amusement attraction included a safety harness worn by the patron and a belay cable system that attached to the harness by use of a carabiner. There is no dispute that the carabiner detached from the safety harness worn by plaintiff, and that plaintiff fell approximately 18 feet to the ground below.

The doctrine of assumption of the risk operates “as a defense to tort recovery in cases involving certain types of athletic or recreational activities” … . A person who engages in such an 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” … . However, “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others, or risks that are concealed or unreasonably enhanced” … . Here, we conclude that the court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion based on assumption of the risk inasmuch as it failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the risk of falling from the climbing wall is a risk inherent in the use and enjoyment thereof … . Stillman v Mobile Mtn., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04149, Fourth Dept 6-8-18​

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (CLIMBING WALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT))/CLIMBING WALL (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff’s decedent apparently backed into defendant’s lane of traffic from the median. There was conflicting evidence about defendant’s speed and the distance between decedent’s car and defendant (i.e., there was conflicting evidence about the applicability of the emergency doctrine):

Given the conflicting accounts about the distance and the elapsed time between when decedent’s vehicle moved into defendant’s lane and the collision and defendant’s speed prior to the accident, we conclude that triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendant’s actions, when confronted with an emergency situation, were reasonable and whether he could have taken evasive action to avoid decedent’s vehicle … . We further conclude that there are issues of fact as to whether decedent’s actions, under the circumstances of this case, were not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment … . Brust v McDaniel, 2018 NY Slip Op 04069, Third Dept 6-7-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

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))

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