You are here: / Negligence

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant did not meet its prima facie burden to demonstrate the crack in a concrete floor was trivial in this slip and fall case. Therefore the burden never shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury … . However, a property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury” … .

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Cortes v Taravella Family Trust, 2018 NY Slip Op 01301, Second Dept 2-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (TRIVIAL DEFECT,  DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s negligence action against a security company (US Security) hired by Kmart did not state a cause of action for tort liability stemming from a contract (Espinal criteria). Plaintiff was injured in a fight with a Kmart employee in a Kmart store. The First Department held that plaintiff was not a third party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and US Security, did not rely to his detriment on the performance of US Security’s duties, and US Security did not entirely supplant Kmart’s duty to secure the store:

Plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security, which contains a “No Third Party Beneficiaries” clause … .

Nor can a duty be imposed on U.S. Security on the ground either that plaintiff relied to his detriment on the continued performance of U.S. Security’s contractual duties or that U.S. Security had entirely displaced Kmart’s duty to secure its store … . Plaintiff’s affidavit says nothing about having knowledge of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security or about detrimental reliance on U.S. Security’s continued performance thereunder … .

As for entire displacement, while the written scope of U.S. Security’s services included “the protection of … customers … in the Premises,” the deposition testimony of the loss prevention manager at the relevant Kmart store makes it clear that, in actual practice, U.S. Security’s services at that store were limited to deterring shoplifting … . Furthermore, U.S. Security did not totally displace Kmart’s duty to secure its store, because Kmart retained supervisory authority over the security guards and required U.S. Security’s staff to complete training in accordance with its (Kmart’s) safety policies and procedures … . Santiago v K Mart Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01296, First Dept 2-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT LIABILITY, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITY COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM, ESPINAL CRITERIA, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was not restricted to a Worker’s Compensation Law remedy in this pedestrian-car accident case. Both plaintiff and defendant were employed by the Culinary Institute of America (CIA). The accident occurred on a private CIA road as defendant was leaving work. The Third Department determined the accident was not related to defendant’s work:

The parties’ submissions reveal that the accident occurred on Campus Drive, which plaintiff described as a ring road encircling the campus — a description consistent with the campus map submitted by defendant. Defendant essentially maintains that because Campus Drive is a private road maintained by the CIA, he necessarily was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident took place. There is support for the premise that going to or from work while on the employer’s premises is considered an incident of the employment … . By comparison, accidents occurring on a public street outside working hours are generally not considered to arise out of the employment absent some nexus between the access route and the employer’s premises… .

Even accepting that Campus Drive is a private road, the submissions demonstrate that the CIA encourages the public to frequent the restaurants on campus and it opened up Campus Drive for general use by the public. There is nothing in this record indicating that the accident was precipitated by any special hazard or incident related to defendant’s employment. To the contrary, the accident allegedly occurred when defendant slowed down but did not stop as plaintiff was in the crosswalk. Such an accident is a common risk shared by the general public traveling on Campus Drive… . We conclude that defendant’s workday ended when he left the parking lot to drive home and, thus, as a matter of law, defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Siegel v Garibaldi, 2018 NY Slip Op 01239, Third Dept 2-22-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff (Torgersen) had raised questions of fact whether defendant’s snow removal and salting efforts were sufficient, and whether the lighting in the parking lot was adequate:

Torgersen claimed in an affidavit that his legs kicked out from under him on ice that was covered by snow and obscured by poor lighting. This account did not directly conflict with his prior deposition testimony — in which he gave a similar account of his fall, said the lighting was not “very good” and was cut off while trying to answer the only question posed regarding the presence of ice — and the discrepancies between them “raised a credibility issue” but did not warrant rejecting the affidavit out of hand … . Plaintiffs further provided the affidavit of another tenant who stated that she observed Torgersen fall as he described. The tenant saw a large patch of ice when she came to assist him and asserted, among other things, that no one salted the parking lot when it was plowed that day and that the poor plowing and salting at the complex had been the subject of complaints. The latter allegation ran counter to proof provided by defendant and Larkin [snow removal contractor], but there is no stated reason why the other tenant would misrepresent what had occurred and, in any event, “a court may not assess credibility on a summary judgment motion ‘unless it clearly appears that the issues are not genuine, but feigned'” … . It is by no means clear here.

Considering the foregoing “in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the opponents of summary judgment”… , material issues of fact exist regarding the role ice and poor lighting played in Torgersen’s fall and whether the ice was due to inadequate salting by Larkin or defendant’s employees and should “reasonably have [been] discovered and remedied” by defendant … . Torgersen v A&f Black Cr. Realty, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01237, Third Dept 2-22-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/LIGHTING (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL,QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SNOW REMOVAL (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT ADEQUACY OF SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING, AS WELL AS LIGHTING, IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a decision dealing with several substantive insurance and employment issues not summarized here, determined that plaintiff, as the beneficiary of her husband’s life insurance policy, had sufficiently alleged she was in a relationship close to privity such that the insurance agent (Pontillo) and his employers owed her a duty of care. Plaintiff’s suit stemmed from the insurers’ denial of coverage based upon material misrepresentations in the decedent’s application (not mentioning substance abuse):

Plaintiff was the intended beneficiary of the ReliaStar policy from the moment when decedent applied for the policy. She further alleged that she was linked to Pontillo by his status as a family member and trusted financial advisor and that Pontillo knew not only that the policy was intended to ensure plaintiff’s financial well-being in the event of decedent’s death, but that she would rely upon his expertise in preparing a valid application for it. Accepting these allegations as true, they show “an affirmative assumption of a duty of care to a specific party, [plaintiff,] for a specific purpose, regardless of whether there was a contractual relationship” … . As Supreme Court correctly determined, this alleged “reliance by . . . plaintiff that was ‘the end and aim of the transaction'” … constituted “a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” and created a duty of care toward her that permitted a negligence claim against Pontillo and his purported employers … . Vestal v Pontillo, 2018 NY Slip Op 01236, Third Dept 2-22-18

INSURANCE LAW (ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT))/PRIVITY (INSURANCE LAW, NEGLIGENCE, (ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined that the complaints stated causes of action against the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO),  and National Grid Electric Services LLC based upon defendants’ failure to shut down the power in advance of landfall by Hurricane Sandy. Plaintiffs alleged the failure to shut down the power resulted in fires which destroyed their property. The complaints alleged the defendants acted in a proprietary, not governmental, capacity and therefore were not entitled to governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants, at this pre-answer stage, had not met their burden of demonstrating their actions were governmental:

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as asserted against them on the ground that LIPA was immune from liability based on the doctrine of governmental function immunity, and that LILCO and National Grid were entitled to the same defense. Specifically, LIPA argued, among other things, that the actions challenged were taken in the exercise of its governmental capacity and were discretionary, and, even if they were not discretionary, plaintiffs’ failure to allege a special duty in the complaints amounted to a failure to state viable claims. Plaintiffs opposed the motions on the ground that defendants’ actions were proprietary, not governmental, and that special duty rules did not apply. Supreme Court denied the motions to dismiss in three substantially similar orders. * * *

… .[P]laintiffs’ allegations concern the provision of electrical power by defendants, a service that traditionally has been provided by private entities in the State of New York. In fact, LIPA itself was created to replace LILCO which, at the time, was an “investor owned utility” (Public Authorities Law § 1020-a). This takeover was anomalous and, when the legislation creating LIPA was enacted, the New York State Public Service Commission — the agency charged with ensuring safe and reliable utility service throughout the State — observed that, “[i]n New York State we have generally adopted a system of private ownership subject to close regulation” … . …

… [W]e cannot say, as a matter of law based only on the allegations in the amended complaints, as amplified, that LIPA was acting in a governmental, rather than a proprietary, capacity when engaged in the conduct claimed to have caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Connolly v Long Is. Power Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01148, CtApp 2-20-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (ELECTRIC POWER,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/UTILITIES (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/ELECTRIC POWER (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether a resident exercised independent judgment in this medical malpractice case, making the resident and his employer (the hospital) potentially liable. Plaintiff’s decedent was intoxicated when given Valium:

Plaintiff’s decedent was brought into St. Barnabas Hospital by the police in an intoxicated and agitated condition. He was then chemically sedated with Valium. Two and one-half hours later, he “flatlined,” and, while resuscitative efforts were made, he did not awaken and was declared “brain dead” four days later.

Appellants contend that Dr. McGrath cannot be held liable for medical malpractice because, as a resident, he did not exercise independent medical judgment when he chose the type and dosage of sedative to use on decedent. However, the deposition testimony of the attending physician, defendant Dr. Rao, raised an issue of fact as to whether Dr. McGrath was permitted to, and in fact did, exercise independent medical judgment in deciding on the amount and type of sedation to administer, so that he may be held liable, and St. Barnabas Hospital may be held vicariously liable … . Burnett-Joseph v McGrath, 2018 NY Slip Op 01137, First Dept 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/RESIDENTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/HOSPITALS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))

,

ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment in this negligent elevator-maintenance case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent had an asthma attack and suffered cardiac arrest in her apartment. When moving plaintiff’s decedent to an ambulance, the building elevator malfunctioned and stopped for at least several minutes. The NYCHA did not demonstrate that the elevator was in good working order or that the NYCHA had no notice the elevator malfunctioned. However, the NYCHA was able to demonstrate the elevator malfunction was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death. The evidence supported the conclusion death occurred in the apartment:

… NYCHA presented unrefuted evidence demonstrating that the decedent’s cardiac rhythm was asystole, a dire form of cardiac arrest in which the heart stops beating and there is no electrical activity in the heart, and that she showed no signs of life in the hour between the arrival of emergency personnel and her transfer into the elevator, despite the emergency responders’ continuous resuscitative efforts. Furthermore, NYCHA’s medical expert stated that “[t]he prolonged and unsuccessful resuscitative course in an asystolic patient is associated with an extremely poor outcome” and that “the decedent’s obesity made resuscitative efforts more difficult and further reduced [her] likelihood of survival.” Thus, he opined, “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty[,]. .. the outcome for the decedent would [not] have changed had the transport time within the elevator been shorter.”

By these facts and its expert’s opinion, NYCHA demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the stoppage of its elevator, and resulting delay of the decedent’s arrival at the hospital, were not a proximate cause of the decedent’s death. Lebron v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01116, First Dept 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATORS (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (ELEVATORS, NEGLIGENCE, ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE (ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION, LANDLORD-TENANT,  ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined that plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this medical malpractice action, despite a 30-month period between visits. Decision holding that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations precludes the application of the continuous treatment doctrine should not be followed:

Plaintiff saw defendant over the course of four years, underwent two surgeries at his hand, and saw no other doctor for her shoulder during this time. She returned to him after the thirty-month gap, discussed yet a third surgery with him, and accepted his referral to his partner only because defendant was no longer performing such surgeries. Plaintiff’s testimony regarding feeling discouraged with defendant’s treatment does not demonstrate as a matter of law that she never intended to return to his care; in fact, her testimony reveals that she considered defendant her only doctor during this time. Nor does the fact that defendant repeatedly told plaintiff she should return “as needed” foreclose a finding that the parties anticipated further treatment. Notably, Plaintiff’s injury was a chronic, long-term condition which both plaintiff and defendant understood to require continued care. Each of plaintiff’s visits to defendant over the course of seven years were “for the same or related illnesses or injuries, continuing after the alleged acts of malpractice” … . As to the 30-month period between visits, we have previously held that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations “is not per se dispositive of defendant’s claim that the statute has run” … . To the extent that lower courts have held to the contrary … , those cases should not be followed. Lohnas v Luzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 01114, CtApp 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))

, ,

CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two partial dissenting opinions, determined the city was not a third-party beneficiary of a contract between the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) and defendant architects (Perkins) and the negligence cause of action (professional malpractice) by DASNY against Perkins was duplicative of the the breach of contract cause of action. Perkins had contracted with DASNY to construct a building. During excavation a neighboring building, sidewalks, sewers, etc. settled. The building gradually settled about eight inches. The majority explained when a tort action, in addition to a breach of contract action, is viable in the context of architectural malpractice:

With respect to construction contracts, we have generally required express contractual language stating that the contracting parties intended to benefit a third party by permitting that third party “to enforce [a promisee’s] contract with another” … . In the absence of express language, “[s]uch third parties are generally considered mere incidental beneficiaries” … . This rule reflects the particular nature of construction contracts and the fact that — as is the case here — there are often several contracts between various entities, with performance ultimately benefitting all of the entities involved. * * *

… [T]here are circumstances where a professional architect may be subject to a tort claim for failure to exercise due care in the performance of contractual obligations. In seeking to “disentangl[e] tort and contract claims,” we focused in Sommer both on potential catastrophic consequences of a failure to exercise due care and on the nature of the injury, the manner in which it occurred, and the resulting harm (79 NY2d at 552). We distinguished between the situation where the harm was an “abrupt, cataclysmic occurrence” not contemplated by the contracting parties and one where the plaintiff was essentially seeking enforcement of contract rights (79 NY2d at 552). Here, the … building settled during the course of several months, damaging adjacent structures. However, even if any “abrupt” or “catastrophic” consequences either could have or did result from Perkins’ alleged negligence, the fact remains that the only damages alleged appear to have been within the contemplation of the parties under the contract — and … are identical for both claims. Put another way, there was no injury alleged here that a separate negligence claim would include that is not already encompassed in DASNY’s contract claim. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. v Samson Constr. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01115, CtApp 2-15-18

CONTRACT LAW (CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY, CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE, CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE (CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))

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