Negligence – Page 215 – New York Appellate Digest

VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, noted that verbal notice to the city about potholes, even if reduced to writing, does not satisfy the written notice prerequisite for the city’s liability:

Defendant established that it lacked prior written notice of a defective or unsafe condition in the road, and plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that an exception to the general rule is applicable… . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it is well established that “verbal or telephonic communication to a municipal body that is reduced to writing [does not] satisfy a prior written notice requirement” … . Tracy v City of Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 00704, Fourth Dept 2-2-1

MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POTHOLES, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POTHOLES, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, POTHOLES, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/POTHOLES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))/WRITTEN NOTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT))

February 2, 2018

Animal Law, Negligence

PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this car-animal accident case should not have been granted. Although, based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the presence of defendants’ black angus bull in the roadway may have constituted negligence, plaintiff did not demonstrate she could not have avoided the accident by lowering her speed on that dark and rainy night:

Cattle are classified as “domestic animal[s]” in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7), and it is well established that “a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal—i.e., a domestic animal as that term is defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7)—is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept” … . Here, “defendants were in exclusive control of the [bull] and the fences surrounding the pasture where [it was] kept” and, because cattle “do not generally wander unattended on public streets in the absence of negligence”… , we conclude that the court properly inferred defendants’ negligence as a starting point in determining their motion.

We further conclude that defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence inasmuch as they failed to submit proof that “the animal’s presence on the [road] was not caused by [their] negligence” … , or “that something outside of [defendants’] control” allowed the bull to escape … . …

Plaintiff’s burden on her motion was to establish both that defendants were negligent as a matter of law, and that she was free of comparative fault … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff met her burden with respect to defendants’ alleged negligence, we conclude that she failed to meet her burden with respect to her own alleged comparative negligence. … [T]here is an issue of fact whether slower travel would have enabled plaintiff to avoid the collision, and that issue must be determined by a jury … . Catalano v Heiden Val. Farms, 2018 NY Slip Op 00759, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (ESCAPED ANIMALS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ESCAPED ANIMALS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

February 2, 2018

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Negligence

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, reinstated the jury’s damages award in this personal injury case. Plaintiffs moved to set aside the damages award unless the defendant stipulated to an increased amount and Supreme Court granted the motion. The Fourth Department explained that the jury was free to disregard expert opinion and the jury could have concluded that plaintiff had exaggerated her injuries or that the injuries were preexisting:

“It is well settled that the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question for the jury . . . , the judgment of which is entitled to great deference based upon its evaluation of the evidence, including conflicting expert testimony” … .. Thus, “even in cases where there is evidence which could support a conclusion different from that of a jury, its verdict will still be accorded great deference and respect so long as there is credible evidence to support its interpretation” … . In addition, ” a jury is at liberty to reject an expert’s opinion if it finds the facts to be different from those which formed the basis for the opinion or if, after careful consideration of all the evidence in the case, it disagrees with the opinion’ “… . In short, “[w]here the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … . Mecca v Buffalo Niagara Convention Ctr. Mgt. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00735, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION, DAMAGES, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (DAMAGES, LAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT))

February 2, 2018

Court of Claims, Negligence

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying (reversing) the Court of Claims, determined the “dangerous condition” cause of action brought on behalf of plaintiff’s decedent should not have been dismissed. The driver passed two signs indicating the bridge ahead was closed, drove through a sign that was in the middle of the road flanked by barricades, and then struck a beam at the entrance to the bridge which spanned the width of the bridge. The driver was killed instantly but the car continued and struck another similar beam spanning the other end of the bridge, injuring plaintiff’s decedent (who died the next day). The plaintiff alleged, under a “second impact” theory, the beams, which were welded at a height which allowed a vehicle to pass under under them, constituted a dangerous condition which was the proximate cause of death. The Fourth Department held the beams constituted a dangerous condition as a matter of law:

… [T]he court erred in dismissing the claim insofar as it alleges that defendants created a dangerous condition that constituted a proximate cause of decedent’s injuries. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Although defendant State of New York is not an insurer of its roads and highways … , it “has an obligation to provide and maintain adequate and proper barriers along its highways” … . Here, we conclude that defendants’ decision to weld a steel box beam across the front of the Bridge, at a height that allowed a motor vehicle to proceed under the beam, constituted the creation of a dangerous condition as a matter of law … .

… [C]aimant proceeded under a “second-impact theory whereby she contended, not that [defendants] caused the accident, but that [their] negligence . . . was [a] proximate cause of . . . decedent’s injury”… . The fact that no negligent act of defendants caused the vehicle to collide with the steel box beam is irrelevant. The point to be addressed is whether the steel box beam was a substantial factor in aggravating decedent’s injuries and causing his death … . Reames v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00713, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/SECOND IMPACT THEORY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

February 2, 2018

Evidence, Negligence

POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this car-bicycle accident case was properly denied. The police report was not authenticated and was not submitted in admissible form, so it could not be considered. The defendant driver failed to eliminate a question of fact whether she was comparatively negligent for failing to see what should have been seen:

Although “reports of police officers made upon their own observation and while carrying out their police duties are generally admissible in evidence”… , the report in this case was inadmissible because it was “not authenticated” and, “[b]ecause the report was not submitted in evidentiary form, it should not have been considered on the summary judgment motion” … . Here … the parties failed to “provide[] an acceptable excuse” for failing to tender the evidence in admissible form … .

With respect to the merits, ” [w]hether a plaintiff [or defendant] is comparatively negligent is almost invariably a question of fact and is for the jury to determine in all but the clearest cases’ ” … . In support of their motion, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of defendant, which raised a question of fact regarding her attentiveness as she drove her vehicle… . It is well settled that every driver of a motor vehicle has “the common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen . . . through the proper use of his [or her] senses’ ” … , and that “a motorist is required to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists, . . . and to operate the vehicle with reasonable care to avoid colliding with anyone on the road” … . Here, the evidence submitted by defendants established that defendant had an unobstructed view of the street as plaintiff’s bicycle approached her vehicle, yet she failed to see him or his bicycle prior to the collision. Thus, we conclude that defendants “failed to establish that there was nothing [defendant] could do to avoid the accident and therefore failed to establish that she was free of comparative fault” … . Chilinski v Maloney, 2018 NY Slip Op 00744, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (EVIDENCE, POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))/BICYCLES (POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT))

February 2, 2018

Medical Malpractice, Municipal Law, Negligence

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly allowed petitioner (Townsend) to file a late notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). Petitioner had been treated for a lacerated thumb. Petitioner did not learn a tendon had been torn until after the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim had passed. He hired an attorney shortly thereafter. The attorney requested petitioner’s medical records from HHC but had not received them by the time the statute of limitations was about to run out. At that point the attorney petitioned for leave to file a late notice of claim. Although HHC did not have timely actual knowledge of the nature of the malpractice claim, because the torn tendon was not mentioned in the HHC medical records, the petitioner’s excuse for not filing the notice of claim (HHC’s failure to provide the medical records) was deemed sufficient:

The actual knowledge requirement “contemplates actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim,’ not knowledge of a specific legal theory” … . Facts found in medical records that merely “suggest” the possibility of malpractice are insufficient, as a plaintiff must demonstrate a hospital’s actual knowledge of negligent acts or omissions which result in injury to a plaintiff … . Supreme Court correctly found that HHC did not acquire actual knowledge of Townson’s malpractice claim through the medical records.

The dissent concedes that Townson … did not learn of [his] torn tendon until March 19, 2015, after the 90-day period had expired. The dissent argues that Townson’s excuse may have been reasonable had he requested leave to file shortly after March 19, 2015, when he learned of the torn tendon. In the dissent’s view the delay in serving the notice of claim is not excusable.

We disagree. Townson’s claim of malpractice is premised upon a theory that the emergency room failed to evaluate whether internal, connective soft tissue damage resulted from the deep laceration. Townson’s counsel, at the time he was retained, which was immediately after Townson had learned of the torn tendon, promptly sent a request to HHC for the medical records to discern the viability of Townson’s malpractice claim, but HHC failed to respond on multiple occasions … . Matter of Townson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00607, First Dept 2-1-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))

February 1, 2018

Landlord-Tenant, Negligence

ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although the lease obligated defendants to make repairs, defendants established they did not create the alleged hazardous condition and did not have actual or constructive notice of it:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he tripped and fell off of the front stoop of a house that he was renting from the defendants, who owned the house. The plaintiff testified at a deposition that, as he exited the house, he stepped out onto the landing, and then down one stair. When he realized that he forgot to lock the interior door to the house, he stepped back onto the landing and attempted to open the outer door to the house. He alleged that the outer door extended beyond the edge of the landing, which made it difficult to stand on the landing and open the door at the same time. He further alleged that, as he tried to open the outer door, he lost his footing and began to fall. He grabbed the handrail to stop his fall, but the handrail broke.

“An out-of-possession landlord that has assumed the obligation to make repairs to its property cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a defective condition at the property unless it either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … . Amster v Kromer, 2018 NY Slip Op 00538, Second Dept 1-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

January 31, 2018

Negligence

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant in this slip and fall case. The defendant did not demonstrate when the area of the fall was last cleaned or inspected. Therefore no prima facie case was made out. Reliance on gaps in plaintiffs’ case is not enough in the summary-judgment context.

In this slip and fall action, defendant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment by merely pointing to perceived gaps in plaintiffs’ case … . Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when plaintiff fell … . Vargas v Riverbay Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00520, First Dept 1-30-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT))

January 30, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law, Negligence

NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action based upon allegations of “poor lighting” and the failure to provide a cover to protect against electrocution should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was an elevator mechanic who was electrocuted when he came into contact with a transformer in the elevator control room. There were no witnesses to the accident. Plaintiffs did not allege the level of lighting constituted a code violation. The absence of a cover over the transformer did not violate any applicable code and defendants were never notified of a problem with the transformers, which had been routinely inspected:

With regard to the issue of whether defendants caused or created a hazardous condition, there is no dispute that [defendants] not design or manufacture the elevator control cabinet, or any of its electrical components, including the transformers … .

As to whether defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition … the building’s property manager… testified that he was never informed that there was any problem with the elevator control cabinet or that the transformers lacked a proper cover either by the DOB or by United despite the fact that both DOB (NYC Department of Buildings) and [the defendant elevator consultant service] conducted inspections of the ninth floor motor room. [The consultant-service president] testified that a cover was not required on the transformers because the transformers were in an enclosed cabinet. …

Even if the elevator control cabinet did not comply with the [American National Standards Institute (ANSI)] standard because the transformers did not have a cover, plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendants were required by law to comply with the … ANSI standard. Indeed, the … ANSI standard has not been adopted by or incorporated into New York City’s elevator code and ANSI itself is not a statute, ordinance or regulation. Thus, a violation thereof is not evidence of negligence … . Bradley v HWA 1290 III LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00516, First Dept 1-30-18

NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))/AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION, VIOLATION OF AN ANSI STANDARD IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))/LIGHTING (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS CONCERNING THE ALLEGEDLY INADEQUATE LIGHTING ALLEGED, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))

January 30, 2018

Negligence, Vehicle and Traffic Law

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this bus-pedestrian accident case should have been granted. The court noted that even if the cross signal changed while plaintiff was crossing, he was permitted to proceed once he started crossing:

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment through his testimony that he was crossing the intersection within the crosswalk and with the light in his favor, when defendants’ bus struck him while making a left turn … .. The testimony of defendant bus driver does not contradict plaintiff’s testimony that he was in the crosswalk, since the driver did not see plaintiff until the moment of impact. The driver’s observation of a white crossing signal before commencing his turn also does not contradict plaintiff’s testimony that he started crossing with the light in his favor. …

The court should not have considered the videotape footage defendants provided as defendants neither authenticated it nor even showed that it had any relevance to the accident at issue … . It indicates, at most, that it was raining. Even if it showed, as defendants claim, that the pedestrian cross signal changed as plaintiff was crossing, that would not help defendants, as plaintiff was permitted to proceed across the avenue, once he started crossing with the signal in his favor (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1112 [b], [c]…). Torres v Werner Bus Lines, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00483, First Dept 1-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT))

January 25, 2018

VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT).

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARD IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY WAS FREE TO DISREGARD EXPERT OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ CASE NOT ENOUGH (FIRST DEPT).

NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.