You are here: / Negligence
, ,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs had stated causes of action against the sellers (the Lyubarskys) of a condominium for fraudulently concealing mold and water damage in the condominium and in the common areas. The complaint also alleged plaintiffs’ attorney committed malpractice in representing them in the purchase. The court explained the how the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) relates to the allegations in the complaint:

“New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on a seller for failing to disclose information regarding the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment”… . “If however, some conduct (i.e., more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises to the level of active concealment, a seller may have a duty to disclose information concerning the property”… . “To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” … .

Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference… , the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the Lyubarskys actively concealed defects throughout the common areas of the condominium building. The complaint alleges that the Lyubarskys took several steps to hide the existence of leaks and mold damage including, inter alia, claiming that they had lost the key to the storage area in the cellar which was assigned to the subject condominium, and removing and replacing damaged sheetrock from the cellar and the parking area. These allegations, if true, might have thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill her responsibilities imposed by the doctrine of caveat emptor with respect to the common areas of the building … . Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 02817, Second Dept 4-25-18

​REAL ESTATE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/CAVEAT EMPTOR  (REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ATTORNEYS, REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (REAL ESTATE,  COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (REAL ESTATE, MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the incident reports concerning plaintiff’s injury when he was struck by a chain link fence he was installing did not provide the city with notice of the essential elements of his negligence and Labor Law claims. Therefore the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied:

… [T]he incident reports … were insufficient to provide the respondents with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the petitioner’s claim. These reports merely indicated that the petitioner injured his shoulder when the temporary chain link fence was blown over by the wind or came down on him as he was working on the fence. The reports made no reference to the claims listed in the proposed notice of claim, inter alia, that the respondents were negligent in allowing a dangerous condition to exist, in failing to provide protective and safety devices, and in failing to properly secure or hoist the fence, and violated certain sections of the Labor Law and unspecified sections of the Industrial Code … .

Furthermore, the petitioner failed to proffer any excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim … . Moreover, the petitioner presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that his delay in serving a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the respondents in defending on the merits … . Matter of Wilson v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02794, Second Dept 4-25-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW,  INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/INCIDENT REPORTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNERS-OCCUPIERS OF A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE LIABLE FOR A FALLING OBJECT INJURY TO A SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether the owner of a building could be liable for injury to a sidewalk pedestrian caused by an object that fell from the building (which was under construction):

Plaintiff Joseph Kosakowski was a pedestrian on the sidewalk adjacent to a building owned and occupied by the Broadway defendants, which was undergoing construction, when he was struck by a piece of sheet metal that fell from above. Under the circumstances presented, issues of fact exist as to whether the Broadway defendants can be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries based upon the nondelegable duty not to cause harm to those traveling on the nearby public sidewalk … . Kosakowski v 1372 Broadway Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02753, First Dept 4-24-18

​NEGLIGENCE (FALLING OBJECTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNERS-OCCUPIERS OF A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE LIABLE FOR A FALLING OBJECT INJURY TO A SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN (FIRST DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNERS-OCCUPIERS OF A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE LIABLE FOR A FALLING OBJECT INJURY TO A SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN (FIRST DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (FALLING OBJECTS, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNERS-OCCUPIERS OF A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE LIABLE FOR A FALLING OBJECT INJURY TO A SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN (FIRST DEPT))

,

EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment, based upon the emergency doctrine, should not have been granted in this “sudden stop” bus-passenger injury case. The defendants alleged that the bus driver reacted to an emergency when a car in front of the bus stopped suddenly. However, the emergency doctrine does not usually apply in this situation:

Defendants contend that the driver of the bus on which plaintiff was a passenger was not negligent in braking to a sudden, hard stop that allegedly caused plaintiff to be injured, but reacted reasonably to the sudden stop of a car in front of the bus. However, the emergency doctrine is typically not available to the rear driver in a rear-end collision, who is responsible for maintaining a safe distance … . The bus driver’s affidavit demonstrates that he was confronted with a “common traffic occurrence” when the vehicle in front of the bus stopped short … . A factfinder could reasonably conclude that the bus driver was negligent in failing to maintain a safe distance between the bus and the car in front of it (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]) and that his own conduct caused or contributed to the emergency situation … . Contrary to defendants’ contention, a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) may be found even where there was no collision … . Vanderhall v MTA Bus Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02720, First Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (BUS PASSENGER INJURY, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (BUS PASSENGER INJURY, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BUS, SUDDEN STOP, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, BUSES, SUDDEN STOP, BUS PASSENGER INJURY, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (BUSES, SUDDEN STOP, (BUS PASSENGER INJURY, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)}/REAR-END COLLISIONS BUSES, SUDDEN STOP, (BUS PASSENGER INJURY, EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the complaint stated causes of action in negligence against the town. Plaintiffs operated and owned property on which they were placing fill. The town issued a permit allowing the filling. The fill caused a substantial landslide. The Third Department found that the complaint alleged a special relationship between the town and plaintiffs, and further alleged that the town engineer did not have the discretion to issue the truncated permit which was issued. Therefore the complaint sufficiently alleged governmental immunity could not be invoked:

Plaintiffs alleged that the Town Engineer directly stated to them that he can “override” the requirements of the Town Code “if [he] is confident that the fill will ‘increase stability’ of the slope” and that, on this basis, he did not require plaintiffs to submit all of the mandated components of a fill permit application. The complaint also alleged that defendant was aware of prior landslides along the same creek and that, after the incident on plaintiffs’ property, the Town Engineer cited a recent study indicating that the local soil was prone to landslides but, regardless of this knowledge, he had suggested to third parties that they dispose of fill at the property. …

Alternatively, plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that a special relationship existed because defendant assumed positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation. Plaintiffs alleged that the filling activities at the property “created a blatant risk of catastrophic failure of the bank,” that defendant “had been made aware of this blatant risk when it intervened at the [p]roperty” and that defendant demonstrated control over the property by directing plaintiffs to cease filling activities and obtain a fill permit and referring third parties to the property to dispose of fill. … * * *

The complaint alleges that the Town Code requires that a full application be submitted for a fill permit, the Town Code mandates that the Town Engineer require that all application components be submitted and that, as regards plaintiffs, the Town Engineer did not require submission of a completed application. Considering these Town Code requirements, the Town Engineer did not have the authority to make a discretionary determination to either grant or deny a fill permit until he had received a completed application, which never occurred here because he told plaintiffs that they did not need to submit some of the components of the application that are required under the Town Code … . Normanskill Cr., LLC v Town of Bethlehem, 2018 NY Slip Op 02697, Third Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Defendant’s employee had recently mopped the area to clean up dog feces and then placed caution signs in the area. There was evidence the floor was extremely wet. The placement of the warning signs did not eliminate all questions of fact about defendant’s negligence:

Defendant’s submissions establish that approximately 20 minutes prior to plaintiff’s fall, defendant’s employee mopped the area where plaintiff fell due to dog feces having been tracked into the store. After the employee mopped the area, he placed two 3½-foot-tall yellow caution signs, one in close proximity to the entrance door, which plaintiff walked directly by when she entered the store. Deposition testimony of several witnesses and a surveillance video established that the floor was extremely wet. One witness, who assisted plaintiff after her fall, stated that the floor was so wet that plaintiff could not get enough traction to get up off the floor. This witness asked for paper towels to dry the floor around plaintiff and only after doing so was plaintiff able to get off the floor. This testimony expressly contradicted the affidavit of the employee who completed the mopping. Therefore, issues of material fact were raised as to whether defendant kept the entrance in a reasonably safe condition, created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . Further, the presence of the warning signs does not prima facie establish entitlement to summary judgment as there is a question of fact as to the adequacy of the warning, particularly given the otherwise dry conditions outside, the placement and height of the signs and the heavy customer traffic where the signs were set … . Firment v Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02700, Third Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT))/WARNING SIGNS (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.,RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR WAS EXTREMELY WET, PLACEMENT OF CAUTION SIGNS DID NOT ELIMINATE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this “water on floor” slip and fall case was properly denied. The defendant did not demonstrate it did not create or have notice of the condition. The fact that plaintiff may have had prior awareness of the condition was a comparative negligence issue that does not preclude summary judgment:

Defendant failed to sustain its prima facie burden of showing that it did not create or have notice of the puddle of water in front of a nurses’ station in the emergency room. Although its operations manager testified to general cleaning and inspection procedures, he did not state that they were followed on the day of the accident, did not know if he worked that day, and did not know when the area was last inspected … .

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident in that she admitted that she saw the puddle several times before she fell, is unavailing. Plaintiff testified that she did not see the water immediately prior to the fall as she was looking straight ahead. Plaintiff did not deliberately undertake a course of action severing the nexus between defendant’s alleged negligence and her injury … . Plaintiff’s prior awareness of the water condition does not require dismissal of the complaint because it is relevant only to the issue of her comparative negligence … . Socorro v New York Presbyt. Weill Cornell Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 02723, First Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JDUGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT))

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF A JAGGED EDGE ON A DOOR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this “injury from a door” case was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged her foot was injured by a jagged edge at the bottom of a door. There had been no complaints about the door or any other injuries caused by the door. The defendants demonstrated that the door was inspected upon installation in 2008, no jagged edge was observed, and the door opened and closed properly:

Defendants established prima facie that they neither created nor had notice of the defect in the door … . They submitted evidence that an outside contractor installed the door in 2008, that defendant Art Farm’s manager inspected it at that time and saw no jagged edge or other visible defect, and tested it to ensure that it opened and closed properly, and that, before plaintiff’s accident, there had been no reports of difficulties with the door or complaints of injuries.

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to defendants’ creation or notice of the defect. There is no evidence that anyone ever saw or reported the door’s sharp, jagged bottom edge until after plaintiff’s accident, and therefore no evidence that the defect existed long enough for defendants to discover and remedy it … . Nor does the affidavit by plaintiff’s expert engineer raise any issues of fact. The engineer offered no opinion about the alleged jagged edge, which did not exist at the time of his inspection of the door nearly three years after the accident. Samuels v Lee, 018 NY Slip Op 02716, First Dept 4-19-18

​NEGLIGENCE (NOTICE OF DEFECT, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF A JAGGED EDGE ON A DOOR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF DEFECT, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF A JAGGED EDGE ON A DOOR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DOORS (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF DEFECT, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF A JAGGED EDGE ON A DOOR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN AMBULANCE IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY AND NO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. Petitioner’s decedent was transported from a nursing home to a hospital by a town ambulance. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. Petitioner sought to file a notice of claim against the town one month after the deadline for the wrongful death cause of action (the deadline is 90 days following the appointment of a representative of the estate) and 11 months after the deadline for the medical malpractice and Public Health Law causes of action:

The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The failure of the petitioner and her attorneys to review the medical records and ascertain a claim against the appellants in a timely manner is not an acceptable excuse … .

Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit evidence establishing that the appellants acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claims within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter. The petitioner provided no records or documentation in support of the petition demonstrating such actual knowledge on the part of the appellants … . The notice of claim was served on the appellants together with the petition more than 1 month after the 90-day statutory period applicable to the wrongful death claim had elapsed and 11 months after the 90-day statutory period applicable to the remaining claims had elapsed. This service occurred too late to provide the appellants with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claims within a reasonable time after the expiration of the applicable statutory period … .

Inasmuch as the petitioner failed to present any evidence or plausible argument that the appellants have not been substantially prejudiced by the delay, the appellants never became required to make “a particularized evidentiary showing” that they were substantially prejudiced … . Matter of Mangino v Town of Mamaroneck, 2018 NY Slip Op 02625, Second Dept 4-18-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN AMBULANCE IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY AND NO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN AMBULANCE IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY AND NO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN AMBULANCE IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY AND NO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN AMBULANCE IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY AND NO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN AMBULANCE IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY AND NO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))

,

PETITIONER’S CHILD, A PRE-KINDERGARTEN STUDENT, FELL AND HIT HER HEAD, THE ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT INFORM THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied. Petitioner’s chlid, a pre-kindergarten student, fell and hit her head. Although a teacher filled out an accident report, the report did not inform the city of the essential facts of the negligence claim (i.e., clutter on the floor). The excuse for the delay was not sufficient and petitioner did not demonstrate the city was not prejudiced by the delay:

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the child’s accident or a reasonable time thereafter. Although a teacher prepared an accident report on the day of the incident, it merely indicated that the child ran into the classroom, “slipped,” and hit her head on a table. This report did not provide the City with timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claims later asserted—that the City was negligent in allowing clutter and debris to accumulate on the floor which caused the child to “trip,” and that it was negligent in supervising the students by failing to have a sufficient number of teachers in the classroom … . Matter of Quinones v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02630, Second Dept 4-18-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW,  NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER’S CHILD, A PRE-KINDERGARTEN STUDENT, FELL AND HIT HER HEAD, THE ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT INFORM THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER’S CHILD, A PRE-KINDERGARTEN STUDENT, FELL AND HIT HER HEAD, THE ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT INFORM THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, PETITIONER’S CHILD, A PRE-KINDERGARTEN STUDENT, FELL AND HIT HER HEAD, THE ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT INFORM THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER’S CHILD, A PRE-KINDERGARTEN STUDENT, FELL AND HIT HER HEAD, THE ACCIDENT REPORT DID NOT INFORM THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (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