You are here: / Negligence

THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the root plaintiff tripped over in a landscaped area was inherent to the area and was not actionable:

The plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries he alleges he sustained when he tripped and fell as he was walking on a landscaped area on the defendants’ property. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that on the date at issue, he had parked his vehicle in the defendants’ parking lot and then stepped up over a curb and walked through a landscaped area of the grounds adjacent to the parking lot as a way of accessing the sidewalk to the defendants’ store. The landscaped area consisted of trees, shrubs, and mulch, and near the plaintiff’s parking spot, there was a gap in the shrubbery. The plaintiff was walking through the gap when he tripped and fell on a root just below the surface of the mulch. …

… [A] landowner “will not be held liable for injuries arising from a condition on the property that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the root that had caused the plaintiff to trip and fall was inherent or incidental to the landscaped area and that it could be reasonably anticipated by those using it … . Miano v Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02453, Second Dept 4-11-18

​NEGLIGENCE (THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ROOTS (SLIP AND FALL, THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))

,

A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim. Petitioner alleged she fell and was injured while riding a bus owned by the county. A county police report was made about the incident. The Second Department held that the fact that the county was aware of the accident does not demonstrate the county was aware of the essential facts constituting the claim:

“In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, [the] court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim”… . “While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance”… . “The determination of an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court” … .

The petitioner failed to establish that the respondents received timely, actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim by reason of a police accident report filled out by an officer who responded to the scene of the petitioner’s accident. “Generally, knowledge of a police officer or of a police department cannot be considered actual knowledge of the public corporation itself regarding the essential facts of a claim” … . The fact that the Nassau County Police Department had actual knowledge of the accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the respondents … . Matter of Cruz v Transdev Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02463, Second Dept 4-11-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to discover the reports of other accidents involving defendant bus driver. Plaintiff’s children were injured after getting off the bus. Both the driver (Morin) and his employer (CDTA) were sued. Although the bill of particulars mentioned negligent hiring and retention, the complaint did not. Therefore there were no grounds for the discovery of the reports of prior accidents:

The allegations of negligence set forth in the complaint, as they relate to Morin and CDTA, pertain solely to Morin’s operation of the bus on the day of the incident … . Specifically, the complaint alleges that, after discharging the infant passengers, Morin “negligently remained in that position for a considerable period of time, causing the bus to obstruct the path of travel for other vehicles in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law[].” It further alleges that Morin was “negligent, careless and reckless” in failing to illuminate his hazard lights or any other signal to alert drivers of the presence of the bus during that time. Critically absent from the complaint is any allegation of direct negligence on the part of CDTA. Thus, the complaint “gives not the slightest indication of a theory of liability of negligent supervision[, hiring or retention]”… . Although plaintiff alleged a theory of negligent hiring and retention in his bill of particulars, “[i]t is well settled that a bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . [, and it] may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . Schonbrun v DeLuke, 2018 NY Slip Op 02386, Third Dept 4-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/BUSES (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BUSES, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/DISCOVERY (ACCIDENT REPORTS, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION (ACCIDENT REPORTS, DISCOVERY , ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined several distinct issues (not all summarized here) that arose from a lawsuit alleging the defendant doctors and hospital performed a c-section birth against plaintiff’s wishes. The cause of action based upon defendants’ performing an unwanted procedure alleged an intentional tort and, based upon the one-year statute of limitations, was untimely. The Public Health Law cause of action was not appropriate because those statutes and regulations do not apply to hospitals (as opposed to residential health care facilities):

… [I]t is clear from the statutory scheme that Public Health Law § 2803-c was not intended to apply to hospitals.

Public Health Law § 2801-d authorizes a private right of action by patients of “residential health care facilities” for the violation of rights enumerated in Public Health Law § 2803-c. “Residential health care facility” is defined by the statute as “a nursing home or facility providing health-related service” (Public Health Law § 2801[3]). Since the hospital is not a “residential health care facility,” this provision is not applicable to the hospital … . The fact that the legislature did not specify that a private right of action was available against hospitals indicates that providing a private right of action to hospital patients was contrary to the legislative scheme. Therefore, no private right of action under the Public Health Law should be inferred … . Dray v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02314, Second Dept 4-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITALS (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))

,

IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the appellate division (and potentially affecting hundreds of recent rulings on summary judgment motions in negligence cases), determined that a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault to be entitled to partial summary judgment on liability. Whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent is, under the controlling statutes, is a damages issue:

CPLR 3212, which governs summary judgment motions, provides that “[t]he motion shall be granted if . . . the cause of action . . . [is] established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” … . The motion for summary judgment must also “show that there is no defense to the cause of action” … . Further, subsection [c] of the same section sets forth the procedure for obtaining partial summary judgment and states that “[i]f it appears that the only triable issues of fact arising on a motion for summary judgment relate to the amount or extent of damages . . . the court may, when appropriate for the expeditious disposition of the controversy, order an immediate trial of such issues of fact raised by the motion” … .

Article 14-A of the CPLR contains our State’s codified comparative negligence principles. CPLR 1411 provides that:

“In any action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or to the decedent, including contributory negligence or assumption of risk shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or decedent bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” … .

CPLR 1412 further states that “[c]ulpable conduct claimed in diminution of damages, in accordance with [CPLR 1411], shall be an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the party asserting the defense.” Placing the burden on the plaintiff to show an absence of comparative fault is inconsistent with the plain language of CPLR 1412. Rodriguez v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02287, CtApp 4-3-18

​NEGLIGENCE (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEGLIGENCE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))

,

PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The risk to plaintiff was inherent in her work:

… [T]he plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident she was employed by a nonparty to clean the subject building. Her duties included the weekly removal of garbage and material to be recycled from the basement of the building. The plaintiff was engaged in the performance of that task when the accident occurred. When asked what caused her to fall, she explained that “there was a lot of garbage” in the basement, including “cardboard all around.”

Where, as here, the plaintiff is a worker whose claim is based upon premises liability, the landowner’s duty is to provide the worker with a safe place to work. A landowner “need not guard against hazards inherent in the worker’s work, hazards caused by the condition the worker is engaged to repair, or hazards which are readily observed by someone of the worker’s age, intelligence, and experience” … .

Under the circumstances here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the risk of slipping on a piece of cardboard in the building’s basement was inherent in the plaintiff’s work … . Rojas v 1000 42nd St., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02194, Second Dept 3-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of plaintiff in this traffic accident case. Both the defendant driver (Abbott) and the plaintiff passenger (Crystal) had consumed alcohol before the accident. The action was brought by Crystal’s mother on behalf of Crystal. Abbott had attempted a u-turn and was struck by the car behind her (driven by another defendant, Diederich):

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, she failed to establish, prima facie, that Crystal was free from culpable conduct with regard to the causation of her injuries. In support of her motion, the plaintiff relied upon, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of Abbott and Crystal. The testimony of Abbott and Crystal that they had consumed alcohol at a fraternity party prior to the subject accident raised questions of fact as to whether Crystal had knowledge that Abbott may have been intoxicated, which raised triable issues of fact regarding her comparative negligence … . Since triable issues of fact existed as to the comparative negligence of Crystal, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the appellants (… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion. Vuksanaj v Abbott, 2018 NY Slip Op 02199, Second Dept 3-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INTOXICATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PASSENGER,  BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant Dominguez’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the emergency doctrine was properly granted. The court noted that the emergency doctrine usually presents a question of fact but the egregious circumstances warranted summary judgment here. Plaintiff was a passenger in Chuquillanqui’s vehicle which was struck by a car driven by Dominguez:

Dominguez submitted evidence showing that the accident occurred when Chuquillanqui attempted an illegal U-turn from the far-right lane of a two-way road that had two lanes traveling in each direction. Dominguez was operating a vehicle traveling in the same direction as Chuquillanqui’s vehicle, but in the left lane at some distance back from Chuquillanqui’s vehicle. Dominguez testified that he had only had a couple of seconds to react when Chuquillanqui abruptly began the U-turn across his right of way in the left lane, and that he unsuccessfully attempted to avoid the collision by turning his vehicle to the left … .

Plaintiff’s opposition was insufficient to raise factual issues as to whether an emergency situation existed prior to the collision, and as to whether Dominguez’s actions before the accident were reasonable under the circumstances. While the “reasonableness of a defendant driver’s reaction to an emergency is normally left to the trier of fact,” in “egregious circumstances,” as here, the issue may be resolved on summary judgment … . Morales v Chuquillanqui, 2018 NY Slip Op 02139, First Dept 3-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/ TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant police officer involved a traffic accident with plaintiff was proceeding through a red light or a green light on his way to an (another) accident scene. If the light was red, the reckless disregard standard would apply to the officer’s driving. If the light was green, the normal negligence standard would apply:

We reject defendants’ contention that the color of the traffic light is not a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment. If the factfinder determines that defendant officer was engaged in the exempt conduct of proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [2]), then the reckless disregard standard of care would apply under the circumstances presented herein … . If, however, the factfinder credits defendant officer’s account that he was proceeding through a green light, then the alleged injury-causing conduct by defendant officer would be governed by principles of ordinary negligence… . Inasmuch as the resolution of that factual issue will determine the standard of care by which the factfinder must evaluate defendant officer’s conduct … , we conclude that the court erred in determining on the submissions before it that the reckless disregard standard applies as a matter of law. Furthermore, the determination of the color of the traffic light at the time of the collision, and each driver’s compliance with the standard of care that will apply upon resolution of that material factual issue, depends on the memory and credibility of witnesses … . Inasmuch as a court’s role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is ” issue-finding, rather than issue-determination’ ” … , we reject defendants’ contention that they are entitled to summary judgment at this juncture … . Oddo v City of Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 02041, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICERS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action based upon a cancer misdiagnosis was time-barred. The misdiagnosis was made before the statute of limitations for cancer misdiagnosis was changed (it now runs from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the misdiagnosis). The court rejected the attempt to extend the statute of limitations by asserting fraud-related causes of action based upon the malpractice and alleged concealment of the misdiagnosis:

Defendants … contend that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for fraud or fraudulent concealment, and that they are not estopped from invoking the statute of limitations against plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action. We agree. “The elements of a cause of action for fraud in connection with charges of medical malpractice are knowledge on the part of the physician of the fact of his [or her] malpractice and of [the] patient’s injury in consequence thereof, coupled with a subsequent intentional, material misrepresentation by [the physician] to [the] patient known by [the physician] to be false at the time it was made, and on which the patient [justifiably] relied to his [or her] damage’ ” … . “The damages resulting from the fraud must be separate and distinct from those generated by the alleged malpractice” … . Additionally, “a defendant may be estopped to plead the [s]tatute of [l]imitations where [the] plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action”… . However, “without more, concealment by a physician or failure to disclose his [or her] own malpractice does not give rise to a cause of action in fraud or deceit separate and different from the customary malpractice action, thereby entitling the plaintiff to bring his [or her] action within the longer period limited for such claims” … . Forbes v Caris Life Sciences, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02086, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/FRAUD (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH 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