You are here: / Negligence
, ,

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))

, ,

STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been denied. The evidence of a storm in progress was insufficient. The climatological analysis report submitted in the reply papers should not have been considered. There was no evidence when the sidewalk was last inspected prior to the fall:

… [T]he defendants submitted a copy of the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition, at which she testified that light rain began to fall about 15 minutes prior to her accident, and that no precipitation fell the day before the accident. The defendants also submitted a copy of the transcript of the deposition of the office manager [the occupant of the abutting property], who testified that she had no recollection of the weather conditions on the day of the accident. The office manager also did not know when the sidewalk was last inspected or what it looked like within a reasonable time prior to the accident. The defendants also submitted video footage and screen shots from a security camera, but this evidence was not probative because it did not clearly depict the surface where the plaintiff slipped. Finally, the defendants submitted a climatological analysis report which was not signed and notarized, and therefore not admissible … .

The defendants submitted a signed and notarized climatological analysis report with their reply papers. However, the Supreme Court should not have considered that report, as it was improperly submitted for the first time with the reply papers … . Brandimarte v Liat Holding Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01042, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s (CVS’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly denied. CVS did not demonstrate that it made no efforts to clear the sidewalk and that it did not exacerbate the dangerous condition:

CVS failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims asserted against it. CVS failed to make a prima facie showing that it made no efforts to clear snow and ice from the sidewalk on which the plaintiff fell prior to the accident. Further, CVS failed to make a prima facie showing that any snow and ice removal efforts undertaken by it or by persons on its behalf did not exacerbate the hazardous condition which allegedly contributed to the plaintiff’s accident … . Hurk-McLeod v Slope Park Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01047, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the hospital’s (Crouse Hospital’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The defendant doctor was not a hospital employee and no hospital employee was named in the complaint or bill of particulars. The plaintiff, in answering the hospital’s summary judgment motion, claimed for the first time that two nurses were negligent. That new theory of recovery could not defeat the motion:

​

Following discovery, the hospital moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, contending that the physician defendant was not its employee and that the hospital therefore could not be held vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. In opposing the motion, plaintiff did not address the hospital’s contention with respect to the physician defendant’s employment status and instead argued for the first time that two of the hospital’s nurses were negligent and that the hospital was vicariously liable for their actions. In our view, that is a new theory of recovery and thus could not be used by plaintiff to defeat the hospital’s motion … . We note that plaintiff did not move to amend the bill of particulars to allege that the hospital was vicariously liable for the nurses’ negligence. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not dispute that the hospital was not vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the physician defendant, there was no basis to deny the motion, which we now grant. DeMartino v Kronhaus, 2018 NY Slip Op 00974, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ANSWERING PAPERS,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice against the resident (O’Donnell) who assisted the plaintiff’s surgeon (Weise) should have been dismissed. Although the resident severed a nerve during the bone drilling procedure, the resident was under the supervision of the surgeon and exercised no independent judgment. Therefore the action against the resident and the hospital (Crouse Hospital), as the resident’s employer, should have been dismissed:

​

It is well settled that a “resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice so long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene” … . Even where a resident “play[s] an active role in [plaintiff’s] procedure,” the resident cannot commit malpractice unless he or she was shown to have exercised some ” independent medical judgment’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff was Wiese’s patient, and Wiese determined the type of surgery to be performed on plaintiff. The deposition testimony of O’Donnell and Wiese establishes that O’Donnell was acting as a resident under Wiese’s direction and supervision during the procedure. Indeed, Wiese testified at his deposition and averred in his affidavit that he supervised O’Donnell’s selection of the location and angle of the drill, and that he made the decision to stop drilling. We therefore conclude that O’Donnell and Crouse Hospital met their burden on the motion by establishing that O’Donnell did not exercise independent medical judgment with respect to his operation of the drill, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Blendowski v Wiese, 2018 NY Slip Op 00973, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff lacrosse player’s action was not barred by a waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Plaintiff was in a ground ball drill when a coach through a ball at her head, injuring her. The coach’s act was arguably grossly negligent, reckless or intentional, and therefore not covered by the waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk:

​

Here, plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit include allegations that the actions of defendants were grossly negligent and extremely reckless. Contrary to defendants’ contention, the written waiver does not bar plaintiff’s action inasmuch as a waiver is not enforceable with respect to allegations of grossly negligent conduct … .

​

… [I]t is well settled that a person who voluntarily participates in a recreational activity such as lacrosse “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation”… . “Such a person, however, will not assume the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, nor will a claim be barred where the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent’ in the activity” … . Tauro v Gait, 2018 NY Slip Op 00952, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK  (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT)/WAIVER (LACROSSE INJURY, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/LACROSSE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the assumption of the risk defense applied in this boating accident case. Plaintiff was in a beginner’s sailing program. Her boat capsized and she was struck by the boom when she attempt to right it. Defendants had not provided any capsize-recovery training:

​

“The assumption of [the] risk doctrine applies as a bar to liability where a consenting participant in sporting or recreational activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks’ “… . “However, the doctrine of primary assumption of [the] risk will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in sailing, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with sailing by failing to provide any capsize recovery training to plaintiff and by letting plaintiff sail on the lake under the weather conditions present on the day of the accident … . Ulin v Hobart & William Smith Colls., 2018 NY Slip Op 00985, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (SAILING, ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SAILING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/SAILING (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Defendants sold used gas pumps to a scrap yard, stating that the pumps had been drained of gasoline. When one of the pumps was sent to the shredder it exploded, injuring plaintiff. The other pumps were found to have one to two gallons of gasoline in them. The Fourth Department held there was a question of fact whether defendants were casual sellers of gas pumps and therefore did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. The Fourth Department further held that, even if defendants were casual sellers of gas pumps, there was a question of fact whether they owed a duty of care to plaintiff because the hazard was not open and obvious:

Although it is well settled that casual or occasional sellers of products do “not undertake the special responsibility for public safety assumed by those in the business of regularly supplying those products”… , the evidence submitted by defendants in support of their motion failed to establish that their sale of gas pumps was “wholly incidental” to their business of installing and servicing petroleum distribution systems … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants were merely casual sellers of used gas pumps, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff. Even casual sellers owe a duty to warn of dangers that are not open and obvious or readily discernable … . Rosario v Monroe Mech. Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00732, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/CASUAL SELLERS (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (NEGLIGENCE, DUTY TO WARN, QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/WARN, DUTY TO (NEGLIGENCE, OPEN AND OBVIOUS, QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))/PRODUCTS LIABILITY  (QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT))

,

THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed, but the common law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, a funeral director, was inspecting a grave which had been covered with plywood when he stepped on the plywood and fell into the grave. The Labor Law causes of action did not apply because plaintiff was not engaged in any relevant work at the time of the fall. However there were questions of fact whether defendants created or had notice of a dangerous condition:

​

With respect to Labor Law § 240 (1), defendants met their burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff “was neither among the class of workers . . . nor performing the type of work . . . that Labor Law § 240 (1) is intended to protect” … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact… . Defendants further established that plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of Labor Law § 241 (6) inasmuch as his inspection of the grave site in his capacity as a funeral director had no direct connection with the alteration or excavation work … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Finally, the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim because, while that statute is not limited to construction work … , it does not apply where, as here, the plaintiff was “not permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure at the accident site” … .

​

… [D]efendants “were required to establish as a matter of law that they did not exercise any supervisory control over the general condition of the premises or that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the premises”… . Defendants’ own submissions establish that each had some level of supervisory control over the premises. Moreover, it is undisputed that [defendant] Wolcott dug the grave and placed plywood over it, thus creating and having actual notice of the condition that plaintiffs allege was dangerous. Further, while [defendant] Oakwood established that it did not create the dangerous condition, it “failed to establish as a matter of law that the condition was not visible and apparent or that it had not existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit [Oakwood] or [its] employees to discover and remedy it,” and it thereby failed to establish that it lacked constructive notice of it … . Solecki v Oakwood Cemetery Assn., 2018 NY Slip Op 00692, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged that work done on the area (between the curb and the sidewalk) where she fell created a dangerous condition. The work was done a year before the fall. The city would be liable only if the dangerous condition was immediately created by the work, not if the condition developed over time:

Although plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant may have created the sinkhole by improperly excavating and backfilling the excavated area, we agree with defendant that plaintiff failed to proffer evidence that the depression “was present immediately after completion of the work” … . Indeed, it is well settled that the affirmative negligence exception ” does not apply to conditions that develop over time’ ” … . Burke v City of Rochester, 2018 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SIDEWALKS  (IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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