You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the assumption of the risk doctrine and the signed release did not warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant in this horseback-riding injury case. Plaintiff fell from a horse during a riding lesson:

… [I]t is undisputed that plaintiff was a beginner and had never before attempted to mount or ride a horse, and the deposition testimony relied upon by defendants raises questions of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with mounting the horse by failing to give plaintiff adequate instructions and assistance based on her size, athleticism, and obvious struggles in attempting to mount the horse, and whether there were concealed risks of mounting the horse, i.e., whether the horse was “tacked” properly … . For the same reasons, we reject defendants’ contention, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the written release established as a matter of law that, as per the language of the release, plaintiff expressly assumed “the unavoidable risks inherent in all horse-related activities” … .  Jones v Smoke Tree Farm, 2018 NY Slip Op 03299, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/HORSES (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/RELEASE (HORSE RIDING LESSONS, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the negligence claim against the state in this slip and fall case was properly dismissed after trial. The raised metal plate in the sidewalk was deemed a trivial defect, not a dangerous condition:

The evidence at trial established that the incident occurred on a clear, sunny day, that claimant saw the readily apparent steel plate, and that the height differential between the steel plate and the sidewalk was small. Graham v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03294, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this parking-lot snow-ice slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant’s submissions included evidence one of plaintiff’s employee had slipped and fallen on ice in the parking lot several hours before plaintiff fell. That evidence raised a question of fact whether defendant had constructive knowledge of the condition:

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . Although “an owner’s general awareness’ that a dangerous condition may exist is insufficient to support a finding that the owner had constructive notice of the specific condition that caused the plaintiff to slip and fall” … , evidence that another person had fallen in the “same general vicinity” a few hours before the plaintiff’s fall raises triable issues of fact whether the condition existed for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Inasmuch as defendant submitted evidence that its employee slipped in the same parking lot as plaintiff several hours before plaintiff’s fall and thereafter observed the icy condition as he rendered aid to plaintiff, there are triable issues of fact “whether the icy condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident to permit defendant[] to discover it and take corrective action’ ” … . Cosgrove v River Oaks Rests., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03286, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL,  EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SLIPPED ON ICE AND SNOW SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL IN THE SAME PARKING LOT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))

PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined a person who sends text messages to someone who is driving does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by the driver, ostensibly because the driver was distracted by the texts:

… [I]t is the duty of the driver to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care in the operation of his or her vehicle to avoid a collision with another vehicle …  If a person were to be held liable for communicating a text message to another person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know is operating a vehicle, such a holding could logically be expanded to encompass all manner of heretofore innocuous activities. A billboard, a sign outside a church, or a child’s lemonade stand could all become a potential source of liability in a negligence action. Each of the foregoing examples is a communication directed specifically at passing motorists and intended to divert their attention from the highway.

To be sure, cellular telephones and other electronic devices present unique distractions to motorists. For that reason, the legislature passed laws specifically to regulate the use of cellular telephones and other electronic devices by those operating motor vehicles … . The legislature did not create a duty to refrain from communicating with persons known to be operating a vehicle. To the contrary, those laws place the responsibility of managing or avoiding the distractions caused by electronic devices squarely with the driver. The driver has various means available for managing or avoiding such distractions, such as a hands-free device to handle incoming calls…  or a setting for temporarily disabling sounds or alerts. Or, the driver can simply pull over to the side of the highway to engage in any communications deemed too urgent to wait. The remote sender of a text message is not in a good position to know how the driver will or should handle incoming text messages. Vega v Crane, 2018 NY Slip Op 03262, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TEXT MESSAGES, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/DUTY OF CARE (TEXT MESSAGES, DRIVERS, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TEXT MESSAGES (NEGLIGENCE, DRIVERS, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (TEXT MESSAGES, DRIVERS, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))/DRIVERS (TEXT MESSAGES, NEGLIGENCE, PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT))

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))

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