You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

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))

, ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. The jury found that the doctor’s postsurgical negligence (ordering an MRI of plaintiff’s hand rather than her wrist) was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries:

… [W]e conclude that the issues of negligence and proximate cause were not so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find one without the other… . Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view … , and we conclude that defendants are entitled to that presumption here.

We also agree with defendants that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and that the court therefore erred in granting plaintiff’s posttrial motion. It is well settled that a jury verdict will be set aside as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence at trial so preponderated in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Applying that principle here, we conclude that there is a fair interpretation of the evidence pursuant to which the jury could have found that, notwithstanding the error in ordering the incorrect MRI, defendant did not cause any postsurgery injuries alleged by plaintiff … . We further conclude that the “trial was a prototypical battle of the experts, and the jury’s acceptance of defendants’ case was a rational and fair interpretation of the evidence”… . Capierseo v Tomaino, 2018 NY Slip Op 02917, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY REASONABLY FOUND THE DOCTOR’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff passenger’s motion for summary judgment against defendant driver should not have been granted and defendant’s motion to amend the pleadings to add the emergency doctrine defense should have been granted. Defendant lost control of the car but raised an issue of fact whether the cause of the accident was black ice:

… [P]laintiff submitted evidence establishing that defendant lost control of the vehicle. The burden then shifted to defendant, who came forward with the exculpatory explanation that he encountered black ice on the roadway, which constituted an emergency. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to defendant … , there is a triable issue of fact whether there was black ice and thus whether an emergency existed at the time of the accident. * * *

… [T]he court erred in denying that part of defendant’s cross motion for leave to amend the answer to assert an emergency doctrine defense. Motions for leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice, and “[m]ere lateness is not a barrier” … . The fact that defendant’s request was made nine days after the filing of the note of issue does not render the request untimely … . Indeed, “[w]here no prejudice is shown, the amendment may be allowed during or even after trial” … , and here, the record is devoid of any potential prejudice flowing from the proposed amendment. Greco v Grande, 2018 NY Slip Op 02916, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, (DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND PLEADINGS, DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a comprehensive decision not fully summarized here, determined there was a question of fact whether the snow removal contractor (SWBG) had launched an instrument of harm or created or exacerbated a dangerous condition by piling snow near where plaintiff slipped and fell:

With respect to the third-party action, we agree with defendants that the court erred in granting SWBG’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the contribution cause of action. It is undisputed that SWBG entered into a contract with the Church to provide snowplowing services, which included salting or sanding the plowed areas at the discretion of SWBG. There are “three situations in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’ . . . (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties . . . and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … . In their verified bill of particulars, defendants relied solely on the first situation.

With respect to the first situation, although SWBG piled the snow in the area of the incline, SWBG established that it did so only at the Church’s direction. Even assuming, arguendo, that such evidence is sufficient to establish that SWBG did not launch a force or instrument of harm, we conclude that defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether SWBG piled the snow at that location on its own initiative and thus whether SWBG launched a force or instrument of harm, i.e., created or exacerbated a dangerous condition … . Chamberlain v Church of the Holy Family 2018 NY Slip Op 02949, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, CONTRACTOR LIABILITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, CONTRACTOR LIABILITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (CONTRACTOR LIABILITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this horseback-riding-lesson accident should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ expert raised questions of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risk of riding:

The expert opined that defendant unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding by numerous acts and omissions, including selecting an inappropriate horse for a novice rider such as plaintiff; providing an unsafe riding space that had ground poles; and failing, prior to bringing the horse to a trot, to ensure that plaintiff knew how to control the horse’s speed and dismount in the event of an emergency. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law… , we conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks of horseback riding … . Enos-Groff v Schumacher. 2018 NY Slip Op 02960, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HORSEBACK RIDING, ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (HORSEBACK RIDING,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/HORSES (ASSUMPTION OF RISK,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK IN THIS HORSEBACK-RIDING-LESSON ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this pedestrian-car accident case (exonerating defendant driver from any comparative fault) should have been granted. Defendant testified she saw persons in the road about 100 yards ahead but did not slow down. When she realized she was going to hit someone she swerved to the left, apparently striking plaintiff at that point:

As a general matter, a motorist has a duty to maintain a proper lookout under the driving circumstances presented and to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed… . A motorist is further “required to keep a reasonably careful look out for pedestrians, to see what was there to be seen, to sound the horn when a reasonably prudent person would have done so to warn a pedestrian of danger and to operate the car with reasonable care to avoid hitting any pedestrian on the roadway” … . These principles in mind, defendant testified that she first observed three people at the edge of Route 9N in front of the Algonquin restaurant heading across the road toward the parking lot on the west side. She estimated being “[p]robably about a football field” away when she first saw the pedestrians. She also estimated her speed at 30 miles per hour and acknowledged that she did not slow down. Explaining how the accident occurred, defendant testified as follows: “As I got closer to the people, who I thought were crossing the road, they were not moving and I knew that if I continued I would hit them so I severely twisted my wheel of the car thinking I could get around them.” She stated that, as she turned her wheel to the right, the pedestrians were on her left. She did not decrease her speed prior to swerving and could not remember sounding her horn.

Defendant’s version of the accident places Blanchard in the roadway, while Blanchard testified that she was in the west shoulder area at the time of impact. Even accepting defendant’s version, her testimony confirms that Blanchard was within her view for a distance of about 100 yards and defendant was aware that Blanchard was crossing the road, and yet, defendant did not slow down or sound her horn. Defendant’s own account confirms that she failed to take any evasive action until the last moment. In our view, defendant’s failure to take reasonable measures to avoid hitting Blanchard gives rise to some degree of comparative fault for this accident. As the jury’s verdict exonerating defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of this evidence, a new trial is in order. Blanchard v Chambers, 2018 NY Slip Op 02852, Third Dept 4-26-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, VERDICT EXONERATING DEFENDANT DRIVER OF ANY COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE SAW PERSONS IN THE ROAD BUT DID NOT SLOW DOWN (THIRD DEPT))

TESTIMONY THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT A HOLE ON THE DEFENDANT CEMETERY GROUNDS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this “stepped in a hole” case was properly denied. The testimony that the defendant cemetery had not received any complaints about a hole and the absence of any evidence of when the area was last inspected did not demonstrate the lack of actual or constructive notice:

Defendant did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff allegedly injured her ankle when she stepped in a hole on defendant’s grounds. The fact that defendant’s director testified that he did not receive any complaints about the condition of the grounds prior to the accident does not establish that defendant lacked actual notice of the hole, because the director did not state that he was working on the day of the accident … .

Defendant also failed to demonstrate that it lacked constructive notice of the hole. Its director’s testimony that he would inspect the premises when his duties permitted does not establish when the subject location was last checked before the accident … . Savio v St. Raymond Cemetery, 2018 NY Slip Op 02906, First Dept 4-26-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, TESTIMONY THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT A HOLE ON THE DEFENDANT CEMETERY GROUNDS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (TESTIMONY THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT A HOLE ON THE DEFENDANT CEMETERY GROUNDS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, HOLE, TESTIMONY THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT A HOLE ON THE DEFENDANT CEMETERY GROUNDS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (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