You are here: / Negligence

PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRING JUSTICE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, with an extensive two-justice concurrence not summarized here, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from playing basketball with knowledge of a crack on the court which caused him to trip and fall:

The plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time of the accident and an experienced basketball player, testified that he “grew [up] playing on [the subject] court,” and that he was aware of the presence of cracks in the surface of the court prior to his accident. The plaintiff also indicated that he was previously aware of the particular crack over which he tripped. When the plaintiff was asked … if he ever saw “what [his] foot got caught in before this happened,” he responded, “[w]e knew where it was before when it happened.” …

Thus, [defendant] demonstrated that it did not violate its duty to exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily participating in a basketball game on the outdoor court despite his knowledge that doing so could bring him into contact with an open and obvious crack in the playing surface … . We note that this Court has consistently applied the primary assumption of risk doctrine in cases involving similar known or open and obvious conditions in the playing surfaces of various types of courts … .

From the concurrence:

While the plaintiff was casually performing a pre-game layup, his foot allegedly got caught in a deep crack, causing his foot to turn and fracture. The cracked condition of the basketball court was not a risk inherent in the sport of basketball and, in my view, under these circumstances, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not applicable.

However, this Court’s precedent compels dismissal of the complaint, since the plaintiff was aware of the cracks on the court and voluntarily chose to play basketball at this location … . Philius v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03161, Second Dept 5-2-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRENCE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRENCE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))

STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant retail store’s (Macy’s) motion for summary judgment in this escalator slip and fall case should have been granted. Proof that the escalator was regularly maintained and inspected and there were no reports of accidents or problems warranted summary judgment and the plaintiff’s claims that the escalator was wet and the rubber handrail pulled up did not raise a question of fact:

Macy’s submitted, inter alia, deposition testimony of two of its employees, as well as the records of maintenance and inspections of the escalator by defendant Thyssenkrupp Corp. and the New York City Department of Buildings. Such evidence showed that the escalator was regularly maintained and inspected during the years prior to plaintiff’s accident, and there were never any reports of accidents or other problems with the escalator… .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable of fact. Plaintiff’s wife’s hearsay statement that the stairs were wet does not indicate that they were wet long enough for Macy’s to have notice of the condition. Similarly, plaintiff’s testimony that the rubber handrail pulled up when he grasped at it as he slipped, does not raise an issue of fact that any such defect existed long enough for Macy’s to have notice, particularly since there were no prior complaints and in light of the evidence of regular maintenance and City inspections showing no problems .. . Furthermore, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert engineer that the wooden escalator treads were more slippery than industry safety standards permit does not raise an issue of fact. Ahmed v Macy’s Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03231, First Dept 5-3-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ESCALATORS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))/ESCALATORS (SLIP AND FALL,  STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT, ‘BUT FOR’ THE ATTORNEYS’ WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPEAL, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the plaintiff’s legal malpractice action properly survived the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that “but for” the attorneys’ withdrawing an appeal plaintiff would have been entitled to a pretermination hearing in his effort to keep his job as a police officer. Plaintiff was terminated after the appeal was withdrawn:

The allegations in the complaint establish that but for defendants’ conduct in withdrawing the appeal from Justice Ecker’s ruling, and in sending a different lawyer than the one promised to represent him at the reinstatement hearing, he would not have incurred damages … . Plaintiff showed that he would have prevailed on the appeal had it not been withdrawn, because Justice Ecker erred in concluding that plaintiff’s conviction of assault in the third degree, based on criminal negligence … constituted a violation of his oath of office, i.e., arose from “knowing or intentional conduct indicative of a lack of moral integrity,” and warranted termination without a hearing pursuant to Public Officers Law § 30(1)(e) … . …

Had plaintiff prevailed on appeal, he would have obtained a pretermination hearing, which, … in contrast to the reinstatement hearing he received, would have allowed him to argue for disciplinary measures other than termination. Plaintiff thus sufficiently alleged that defendants caused him actual ascertainable damages of lost salary and other benefits … . Roth v Ostrer, 2018 NY Slip Op 03218, First Dept 5-3-18

​ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT ‘BUT FOR’ THE ATTORNEYS’ WITHDRAWAL OF A APPEAL, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ATTORNEYS,  PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT ‘BUT FOR’ THE ATTORNEYS’ WITHDRAWAL OF A APPEAL, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (LAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT ‘BUT FOR’ THE ATTORNEYS’ WITHDRAWAL OF A APPEAL, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff firefighter’s motion for summary judgment in this General Municipal Law 205-a, Labor Law 27-a slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he fell because of a gap in a grate at the Homeport Pier. The court noted that the plaintiff’s own submissions raised triable issues of fact about whether the gap was the result of defendant’s (the city’s) negligence:

General Municipal Law § 205-a(1) provides a right of action for firefighters who are injured “as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence” of a defendant “in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments.” To make out a valid claim under General Municipal Law § 205-a, a plaintiff must ” [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the firefighter'” … .

… [T]he only statute, ordinance, or rule identified by the plaintiff which could support the imposition of liability pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-a under the facts of this case was Labor Law § 27-a  …. Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) provides that every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that are “free from recognized hazards” that cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. This statute may serve as a predicate for a cause of action alleging a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-a … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that the gap in the grates was a result of negligence by the City. His submissions included evidence that (1) the Homeport Pier was inspected regularly, (2) gaps in the grates were sometimes caused by expansion and contraction of the metal and shifting due to vehicles driving over them, (3) any gaps over an inch were rectified when discovered during regular inspections, and (4) the Homeport Pier and the grates were inspected within two days prior to the plaintiff’s accident. Shea v New York City Economic Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03164, Second Dept 5-2-18

​NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW  (PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, LABOR LAW 27-a, SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN SUBMISSIONS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))

,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant abutting property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly granted. The property owner proved it did not create the sidewalk defect and the local code which required abutting property owners to keep sidewalks in good repair did not explicitly impose tort liability on the property owner:

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of or the existence of dangerous [or] defective conditions to public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner” … . “An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty” … .

Here, Water View established, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged condition or cause the condition through a special use of the sidewalk. Additionally, although … the Code of the Village of Freeport requires an abutting landowner to keep a sidewalk in good and safe repair, it does not specifically impose tort liability for a breach of that duty … . Bousquet v Water View Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03119, Second Dept 5-2-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT Did NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT Did NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT Did NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LAW OFFICE FAILURE NOT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Court of Claims should not have granted claimant’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim in this highway accident case. Plaintiff’s motorcycle skidded off the road and truck a guardrail. The accident report stated that plaintiff lost control of the motorcycle “for an unknown reason.” The notice of claim should have filed within 90 days, but, due to law office failure, the attempt to file was made two and a half years late. Law office failure is not an adequate excuse. The accident report did not alert the state to the essential facts of the claim, and claimant did not show the state was not prejudiced by the delay:

Court of Claims Act § 10(3) requires that a claim to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of an officer or employee of the state must be served upon the attorney general within 90 days after the accrual of such claim. However, “Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim” … . The enumerated factors are whether the delay in filing was excusable, the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, the claim appears to be meritorious, the State is prejudiced, and the claimant has any other available remedy … . “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … . Casey v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03120, Second Dept 5-2-18

​COURT OF CLAIMS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS HIGHWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LAW OFFICE FAILURE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department determined defendant bank’s (Capital One’s) motion for summary judgment in this forged-check negligence action was properly denied (without the need to consider the opposing papers). One of plaintiff corporation’s employees forged company checks made out to herself amounting to over $84,000. Plaintiff sued the bank for negligence pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) article 4:

Under article 4 of the UCC, with regard to repeated forgeries by the same wrongdoer, the customer’s failure to exercise reasonable care and promptness in examining its bank statements and to timely notify the bank of the forgeries in accordance with UCC 4-406(2)(b) generally will result in the customer being precluded from asserting claims against the bank in connection with the loss associated with any such forgeries … . However, the loss of repeated forgeries may be shifted back to the bank in the circumstance where the bank failed to use ordinary care in paying the forged checks … . With regard to the issue of ordinary care, UCC 4-103(3) provides that “in the absence of special instructions, action or non-action consistent with clearing house rules and the like or with a general banking usage not disapproved by this Article, prima facie constitutes the exercise of ordinary care.” Thus, under this “safe harbor” provision, a bank can ensure that its conduct at least prima facie meets an ordinary care standard, by showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or practices … . However, it is the bank, as the party that benefits from the “safe harbor” provision, that bears the burden of proving general clearing house rules or general banking usage in order to establish ordinary care … . …

Capital One did not meet its burden of showing that it acted in accordance with general banking rules or general clearing house rules, and therefore, it failed to demonstrate prima facie that it exercised ordinary care in paying the forged checks … .Capital One’s submissions failed to provide any evidentiary basis that its processing of the forged checks comported with general banking usage. Redgrave Elec. Maintenance, Inc. v Capital One, N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 0316, Second Dept 5-2-18

​BANKING LAW (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (BANKING LAW, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORGED CHECKS, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORGED CHECKS (BANKING LAW, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A REGULATION ALLOWING CITY SANITATION TRUCKS TO DOUBLE PARK RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS ABOUT WHETHER THE DOUBLE PARKED SANITATION TRUCK COULD HAVE BEEN PULLED TO THE CURB, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city was not entitled to summary judgment based upon the van in which the plaintiff was a passenger striking the rear of a sanitation truck that was double parked. On appeal the city cited a regulation which allows sanitation trucks to double park. The existence of the regulation was raised for the first time on appeal. Although the regulation could have been considered on appeal if it raised a pure question of law, disputed facts about the possibility that the truck could have moved over to the curb foreclosed an appellate ruling:

While, as a matter of common sense, a City sanitation truck may under certain circumstances need to double park in order to perform its job of removing refuse, the City did not point to any regulation exempting sanitation trucks from City traffic rules, and therefore did not establish prima facie their lack of liability. On appeal, the City defendants bring to the Court’s attention a City traffic regulation, applicable at the time of the accident, that excepts City refuse trucks from double parking rules under certain conditions, and we take judicial notice of that regulation … . The regulation provides that the “operator of a refuse collection vehicle working on behalf of the City” is allowed to “temporarily stand on the roadway side of a vehicle parked at the curb, provided that no curb space is available within fifteen feet, while loading refuse . . .” … .

It is well-settled that “[w]here a party . . . raises [for the first time on appeal] a new legal argument which appeared upon the face of the record and which could not have been avoided . . . [s]o long as the issue is determinative and the record on appeal is sufficient to permit our review, [this Court may consider the argument]”… . Here, however, the City’s argument that the regulation allowed their operator to double park is not a pure question of law, but depends on disputed facts in the record concerning whether there was a parking space available within fifteen feet of the pick up location. While the two sanitation employees assigned to the truck testified that there was no curb space available to park when they arrived, one of them acknowledged that a post-accident photograph, which is in the record, appears to show an open space between the double-parked truck and the curb. The testimony of one of the employees that it would have been unsafe to attempt to parallel park the truck under the existing traffic conditions also presents an issue of fact to be resolved by a fact-finder. We therefore decline to consider the City defendants’ newly-raised argument for the first time on appeal … . Nadella v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03103, First Dept 5-1-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A REGULATION ALLOWING CITY SANITATION TRUCKS TO DOUBLE PARK RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS ABOUT WHETHER THE DOUBLE PARKED SANITATION TRUCK COULD HAVE BEEN PULLED TO THE CURB, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (NEGLIGENCE, ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A REGULATION ALLOWING CITY SANITATION TRUCKS TO DOUBLE PARK RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS ABOUT WHETHER THE DOUBLE PARKED SANITATION TRUCK COULD HAVE BEEN PULLED TO THE CURB, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A REGULATION ALLOWING CITY SANITATION TRUCKS TO DOUBLE PARK RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS ABOUT WHETHER THE DOUBLE PARKED SANITATION TRUCK COULD HAVE BEEN PULLED TO THE CURB, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)).REAR END COLLISIONS (ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A REGULATION ALLOWING CITY SANITATION TRUCKS TO DOUBLE PARK RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS ABOUT WHETHER THE DOUBLE PARKED SANITATION TRUCK COULD HAVE BEEN PULLED TO THE CURB, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice, wrongful death case should not have been granted. Decedent was suffering from a life-threatening but eminently treatable condition (unstable angina) when he saw the defendant doctor.  Decedent died three days later. The doctor testified decedent had refused to go to the hospital. Credibility issues were raised about the substance of the defendant’s testimony. The Fourth Department noted that credibility issues are for the jury and should not be considered on a motion to set aside a verdict:

Defendant testified at trial that he recognized the life-threatening condition and conveyed to decedent “that he should go to the hospital” (emphasis added). Defendant further testified that he knew that “there needed to be more testing done,” but that decedent “adamant[ly]” “refused” to go to the hospital and “didn’t give [defendant] a good reason why.” Defendant’s notes, however, do not reflect any urgency. Indeed, the only notation made by defendant concerning that conversation was, “Discussed admit on Fri of holiday [weekend], declined.”

Moreover, despite the fact that defendant claimed to have recognized the severity of decedent’s condition, he did not set up any follow-up appointment with a cardiologist for over five days and admitted that he was “surprised” to learn of decedent’s death three days after his appointment with decedent.

As with most wrongful death cases, this case is complicated by the death of decedent, the only person who could have directly refuted defendant’s factual testimony. The Noseworthy doctrine thus provides that in a wrongful death case, such as this, “a plaintiff is not held to as high a degree of proof of the cause of action as where an injured plaintiff can himself describe the occurrence” … . The doctrine “applies only to such factual testimony as the decedent might have testified to, had [he or she] lived’ ” … , and the “lesser degree of proof pertains to the weight which the circumstantial evidence may be afforded by the jury, not to the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet” … .

Here, the only direct testimony regarding whether defendant recognized the severity of decedent’s condition and explained that to him “came from defendant . . . and, implicit in the court’s findings is that his testimony was credible. Issues of credibility, however, are for the jury” … . We agree with plaintiff that there are issues with respect to defendant’s credibility, and those issues should not have been determined by the court. In our view, this is not a case in which there is “absolutely no showing of facts from which negligence may be inferred” … , and we thus conclude that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Bolin v Goodman, 2018 NY Slip Op 02920, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH,  CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH (NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH, CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the cause of action fOR medical malpractice stemming from an office visit within the limitations period was independently viable, and the continuous treatment doctrine rendered all the causes of action timely:

… [T]he claims based on allegations of negligent treatment during the January 2, 2013 office visit have an independent viability regardless of whether any prior alleged negligence is time-barred.

… [T]he record establishes that defendants provided continuous treatment to plaintiff for a condition, i.e., atrial fibrillation, until January 2, 2013; the alleged wrongful acts or omissions were related to that condition; and such treatment “gave rise to the . . . act, omission or failure” complained of … . Indeed, the record establishes that the alleged wrongful acts or omissions themselves ran continuously until January 2, 2013. We therefore reject defendants’ contention that the statute of limitations began to run at the time of the first prescription of Pradaxa on January 10, 2011. We conclude that the court erred in granting the motion inasmuch as this action was timely commenced within 2½ years of the cessation of defendants’ continuous treatment of plaintiff’s atrial fibrillation condition … . Phillips v Buffalo Heart Group, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 03055, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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