You are here: / Negligence
, , , ,

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (NYCHHC); CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) for medical malpractice, as well as the motion for leave to renew based upon recently disclosed medical records, should have been granted:​

… [P]etitioner established a reasonable excuse for the delay, to wit, the serious medical condition of the infant, which required hospitalization of the infant after his birth, feeding through a feeding tube, and numerous medical appointments while the condition of the infant was being assessed … . Considering the overall circumstances, including the petitioner’s natural predisposition to be more concerned with the infant’s medical condition and the treatment those injuries required, rather than with commencing legal action during the prescribed time period, the delay in serving a late notice of claim should have been excused … . Further, in support of that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was for leave to renew the petition, the petitioner submitted her medical records and an expert’s affidavit, which established that NYCHHC had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim since the alleged malpractice was apparent from an independent review of the medical records … . The medical records were not submitted earlier because, although the petitioner sought her medical records in August 2022, she only received those records on December 22, 2022 … . Further, the medical records were voluminous.

Since the conduct at issue was fully documented in the medical records, the petitioner made an initial showing that NYCHHC was not prejudiced by the delay in serving the notice of claim … , and, in response, the NYCHHC made no showing of prejudice. ​​​​​Matter of Bergado v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06039, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Here the mother of the injured infant proffered an adequate excuse for failing to timely file a notice of claim in this medical malpractice action against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) and demonstrated the NYCHHC had timely notice of the nature of the action and suffered no prejudice from the delay through the medical records.

Practice Point: The motion for leave to renew was properly based upon mother’s recent receipt of medicals records not previously provided.

 

, , ,

THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a plaintiff is not required to serve a notice of claim for a tort action against a charter school. Here the infant plaintiff was injured on the playground of a charter school (Evergreen) and Supreme Court dismissed the case because no notice of claim had been served on the school:

… [A]s explained in this Court’s recent opinion and order in A.P. v John W. Lavelle Preparatory Charter Sch. (228 AD3d 138), Education Law § 3813(2) and General Municipal Law § 50-e do not require service of a notice of claim prior to commencement of a tort action against a charter school … . Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Evergreen based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to serve Evergreen with a notice of claim … . L.R. v Evergreen Charter Sch., 2024 NY Slip Op 05998, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A plaintiff bringing a tort action against a charter school is not required to serve a notice of claim.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THE REAR DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE REAR-DRIVER’S ALLEGATION THE PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON CREATES A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ claim that plaintiff stopped suddenly for no apparent reason supported defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense in this rear-end collision case:

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted his affidavit, in which he averred that his vehicle, after having been stopped at an intersection for approximately 20 to 30 seconds, was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition, however, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident because he stopped suddenly for no apparent reason … . Martinez v Colonna, 2024 NY Slip Op 05971, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision, defendant’s allegation plaintiff stopped suddenly does not rebut the presumption defendant was negligent. But defendant’s allegation plaintiff stopped suddenly for no apparent reason raises a question of fact in support of defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense.

 

, , ,

THE LANDOWNER ABUTTNG A SIDEWALK IN NYC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK; HERE THE LANDOWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT DID NOT AVER WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landowner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The landowner failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of snow and ice:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes a nondelegable duty on certain landowners, which includes 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, to maintain sidewalks abutting their land, including the removal of snow and ice …  “[T]he duty applies with full force notwithstanding an owner’s transfer of possession to a lessee or maintenance agreement with a nonowner” … . Landowners, however, are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalk, as “section 7-210 adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation” … .

“A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow or ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition” … .  “A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that 149-53 14th Avenue, LLC, did not have constructive notice of the alleged snow and ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The evidence submitted by the defendants failed to establish when the sidewalk was last cleaned or inspected relative to when the plaintiff fell … . Marinis v Loschiavo, 2024 NY Slip Op 05970, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code a landowner abutting a sidewalk has a nondelegable duty to maintain the sidewalk, which includes removal of ice and snow. The landowner can demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the presence of ice and snow by proof the sidewalk was inspected or cleaned close in time to the slip and fall, not the case here.

 

, ,

IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW SHE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DAMAGES TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint, noted that the plaintiff need not show she actually sustained damages to survive a dismissal motion:

The plaintiffs alleged … that they retained the defendants to represent them in an action to recover damages for personal injuries the plaintiff … allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident (hereinafter the underlying action) and that due to the defendants’ failures to pursue a theory based on a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509(3), the plaintiffs were not able to obtain a verdict in their favor in the underlying action. * * *

To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, “a plaintiff must allege that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages but for the attorney’s negligence” … . “A plaintiff is not obligated to show, on a motion to dismiss, that it actually sustained damages … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Kowalski v Gold Benes, LLP, 2024 NY Slip Op 05967, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: In this legal malpractice case, the court noted the plaintiff need not show she actually sustained damages to survive a motion to dismiss.​

 

,

HERE THE AUTOMATIC DOOR AT A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CLOSED ON THE ELDERLY PLAINTIFF; SENSORS WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE DOOR FROM CLOSING WERE AVAILABLE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOOR WAS SAFE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit stemming from an automatic door at a residential facility closing on the elderly plaintiff should not have been dismissed, despite the evidence that the door was not defective. There was evidence that sensors which would stop the door from closing when a person is in the doorway could have been installed:

Given the competing expert affidavits on whether defendants maintained their property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances, Supreme Court erred in awarding defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . Context is essential in gauging whether a property owner has maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Here, defendants knew certain residents required walkers or wheelchairs that would impact their ability to navigate through a doorway, that the facility’s doors were previously serviced for closing too quickly, and that presence sensors were a readily available option from the manufacturer. Plaintiff also sustained a serious injury to her right leg requiring surgery. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we find that there are triable issues of fact as to whether the premises were reasonably safe … . Any issue of comparative fault on the part of plaintiff and/or her daughter and grandson who were with her at the time of this incident is a question to be resolved by a factfinder … . Spielman v Glenwyck Dev., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05932, Third Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Here there was no evidence the automatic door which closed on plaintiff was defective, but there was a question of fact whether the installation of sensors would have rendered the door safe for use by the elderly.

 

, ,

THE HISTORY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INFANT PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER STUDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ATTACK ON INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS FORESEEABLE FROM THE SCHOOL’S PERSPECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision action against defendant school should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff (E.E.) had been attacked and seriously injured by another student (J.H.). Supreme Court found the attack was not foreseeable. The Third Department found the evidence of foreseeability sufficient to raise a question of fact:

The record contains evidence of the following. J.H. had a school disciplinary history of 18 incidents between 2015 and 2018, which resulted in numerous detentions and suspensions. Of these 18 incidents, it appears that at least five involved acts of violence on J.H.’s part. One of the suspensions was for lighting a fellow student’s hair on fire, while another suspension was for her previous attack on E.E. That particular incident involved J.H. borrowing rings from other students in order to maximize the injuries that she could inflict upon E.E. J.H. was also suspended for obtaining unclothed photos of E.E. and posting them online under the guise that it was E.E. who was posting them. By the spring of 2017, school officials were aware that J.H. was suffering from anxiety and depression, had been the subject of a PINS petition, was a runaway risk, exhibited violent behavior, had “no judgment” and was “very unpredictable.” At some point around the middle of the 2017-2018 school year, J.H. screamed at E.E. in a school hallway, “what are you looking at?”, and E.E. reported this to a teacher. Approximately two weeks before the incident in question, J.H.’s mother called a school guidance counselor and warned that J.H. was planning to do something to get herself expelled from school. The district superintendent stated that if she had been made aware of this call, she would have advised the high school principal about it and ensured that there was a safety plan in place.

While we are mindful that there were no specific incidents between J.H. and E.E. for a number of months prior to the subject assault, the evidence of J.H.’s extensive disciplinary history, including acts of violence together with the prior incidents aimed at E.E. herself, as well as the recent warning call from J.H.’s mother, was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to whether J.H.’s attack on E.E. was foreseeable and whether it was a consequence of a lack of adequate supervision on defendant’s part … . To the extent that defendant argues a lack of foreseeability by pointing to J.H.’s deposition testimony wherein she indicated that she did not plan the attack in advance, we are unpersuaded. “The issue is not the speed of the punch, but the circumstances leading up to and surrounding that conduct” … . In light of the foregoing, it was error to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. T.E. v South Glens Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 05934, Third Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof necessary to raise a question of fact about the foreseeability of an attack on a student by another student.

 

, ,

THE ERRORS MADE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT MADE IN BAD FAITH AND DID NOT PREJUDICE THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANT; THEREFORE AMENDMENT OF THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the erroneous incident-date in the notice of claim did not justify dismissal of the action in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The error was not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant:

The Transit defendants … moved … pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint … on the ground that the notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), as it incorrectly listed the date of the accident as March 5, 2016, instead of April 5, 2016, and identified the plaintiff as “Maria Hernandez,” instead of “Maria Hernandez-Panell.” …

General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) requires that a notice of claim set forth … “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” … . “[I]n determining compliance with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e, courts should focus on the purpose served by a Notice of Claim: whether based on the claimant’s description municipal authorities can locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature of the accident” … . Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), a court has discretion to grant leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the error in the original notice was made in good faith and where the other party has not been prejudiced thereby … .

Here, there is no indication that the date originally listed in the notice of claim as the accident date was set forth in bad faith, and the Transit defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the error … . Moreover, the plaintiff supplied the correct date of the accident at the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and Public Authorities Law § 1212(5) … . Hernandez-Panell v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Errors in a notice of claim against a municipality should not result in dismissal of the action if the errors were not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant.​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant clothing store (Gap) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligent-hiring-supervision complaint. Plaintiff alleged a store employee, Medel, attempted to record her on a cell phone as she was changing in a fitting room. The negligent hiring cause of action alleged Gap did not do a background check before hiring Medel, which was alleged to have been in violation of store policy:

The Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the store defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention insofar as asserted against them. “‘[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury'” … . Here, the submissions of the store defendants in support of their motion demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not have notice of any propensity of Medel to commit misconduct … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Gap or Old Navy knew or should have known that Medel had a propensity to commit misconduct … . The plaintiff’s contention, via the affidavit of her expert, that neither Gap nor Old Navy appeared to have conducted a background check prior to hiring Medel, as was their apparent internal policy before hiring any employees, is without merit. “There is no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring employees unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate the prospective employee” … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that a background check of Medel would have revealed a propensity to commit misconduct … . Hashimi v Gap, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A negligent hiring cause of action based on the allegation the employer did not conduct a background check, without more, will not survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must demonstrate the employer knew of facts which should have triggered a background check.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded plaintiff in this property-damage case. Plaintiff alleged defendant’s vehicle struck a brick wall and fence on plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff’s affidavit did not state it was based on first-hand knowledge and the uncertified police report was inadmissible:

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . “‘A conclusory affidavit or an affidavit by an individual without personal knowledge of the facts does not establish the proponent’s prima facie burden’ on a motion for summary judgment” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s conclusory affidavit, which failed to set forth whether he had firsthand knowledge of the event, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that a vehicle operated by the defendant struck a brick wall and fence located on the plaintiff’s property … . The uncertified police accident report submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion was not admissible … . Felle v Maxaner, 2024 NY Slip Op 05959, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Affidavits which do mot make clear the allegations are based on first-hand knowledge will not support summary judgment.

Practice Point: Uncertified police reports are not admissible.

 

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