You are here: / Negligence
,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A FALLING TREE LIMB; THE CITY AND COUNTY, AS PART OWNERS OF THE TREE, CANNOT BE LIABLE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VISIBLE SIGNS OF DECAY; THE PRIVATE PARTY WHOSE NEIGHBOR WAS INJURED BY THE FALLING LIMB, HOWEVER, MAY BE LIABLE BECAUSE HE WAS AWARE THE LIMB WAS WEAK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the city and county defendants (part owners of the tree) could not be held liable for injuries caused by a falling tree limb because there were no visible signs of decay. The defendant property-owner, whose neighbor was struck by the limb, however, may be liable because he was aware the limb was weak:

Accepting for purposes of the respective motions that the City and the Land Bank are part owners of the tree, we note, and the parties do not otherwise suggest, that neither had actual notice of any potential danger posed by the tree, thus requiring that the contribution claim against both entities be established on a theory of constructive notice. To that end, “the concept of constructive notice with respect to liability for falling trees is that there is no duty to consistently and constantly check all trees for nonvisible decay. Rather, the manifestation of said decay must be readily observable in order to require a landowner to take reasonable steps to prevent harm” … . Weaver v Metsker, 2024 NY Slip Op 05380, Third Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: In order to demonstrate the county and city, part owners of a tree along with a private party, had constructive notice that a tree limb posed a danger of falling, there must have been some visible sign of decay.

Practice Point: Even if there are no visible signs of decay, a private party who owns a tree may be liable for a neighbor’s injury from a falling limb if he or she is aware the limb was “weak.”

 

, ,

AFTER SKIING ALL DAY AND RETURNING THE EQUIPMENT, CLAIMANT SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A PARKING LOT; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; THE COURT NOTED THAT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, HERE AN INCIDENT REPORT, MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF IT DUPLICATES NON-HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Court of Claims, determined that the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply to claimant who had finished skiing for the day and was walking to his car in the parking lot when he sipped and fell on ice and snow. The court noted that inadmissible hearsay, here and incident report, may be considered on a summary judgment motion where it duplicates non-hearsay evidence:

… [I]t is undisputed that [claimant] fell at a time when he was finished skiing for the day, and he no longer had any ski equipment on or near his person. He was, instead, returning to his parked vehicle, intending to exit defendants’ property entirely. As a matter of law, [claimant] was not engaged in any facet of skiing at the time that he was injured, and the primary assumption of risk doctrine is therefore inapplicable … . * * *

To the extent that defendants argue that the incident report, as well as certain aspects of Weichsel’s testimony, is inadmissible hearsay and thus may not be relied upon by claimants, we first note that such evidence was proffered by defendants in support of their own motion. In any event, inadmissible hearsay may be considered at the summary judgment stage where it exists alongside admissible evidence in support of the same argument … . Weichsel v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05384, Third Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: The assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply to a skier who, after skiing all day and returning the equipment, slips and falls in the parking lot.

Practice Point: Inadmissible hearsay, here an incident report, can be considered on a summary judgment motion it it duplicates non-hearsay.

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS’ STOPPED VEHICLE WAS HIT FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLANTIFF’S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Menegos defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The Menegos defendants demonstrated their vehicle had come to a stop behind plaintiff’s vehicle before it was struck from behind and pushed into plaintiff’s vehicle:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “‘A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence'” … . “Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . Thus, in a three-vehicle chain-collision accident, the defendant operator/owner of the middle vehicle “may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle” … . Beltre v Menegos, 2024 NY Slip Op 05322, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, if a stopped car is hit from behind and pushed into the car in front, the driver of the stopped car is not negligent.

 

, ,

IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, A SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Andre) was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice action because defendant’s expert’s affidavit was “speculative and conclusory:”

The affidavit and supplemental affidavit of Andes’s expert physician, Reed E. Phillips, were insufficient to establish the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice … . Phillips’s opinion that Andes did not depart from the standard of care by failing, inter alia, to obtain the decedent’s prior medical records, to order a CT scan, MRI, or other imaging, and to timely diagnose the decedent with liver cancer, as well as his opinion that the decedent’s cancer was incurable by the time the decedent first treated with Andes, was speculative and conclusory and otherwise insufficient to demonstrate that Andes comported with good and accepted standards of practice in his care and treatment of the decedent or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries and ultimate death … . Miller-Albert v EmblemHealth, 2024 NY Slip Op 05340, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: In medical malpractice cases, at the summary judgment stage, the action survives or fails based upon the quality of the expert affidavits. Conclusory or speculative assertions in expert affidavits have no probative value.

 

, ,

IN A CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER ALLEGED TO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT IN THE 60’S, THE BARE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE EMPLOYER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for negligent retention or negligent supervision of a teacher alleged to have sexually abused plaintiff in the 60’s. An allegation which merely states a bare legal conclusion is not entitled to consideration on a motion to dismiss. Here the complaint alleged defendant employer, YCQ,  “knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury:”

… [T]o sustain the cause of action sounding in negligent supervision of a child, the plaintiff was required to allege that YCQ “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . Similarly, “[a]n employer can be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision where it is shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .

Here, the complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging negligent retention of the religious studies teacher by YCQ and a cause of action alleging negligent supervision based upon YCQ’s failure to adequately supervise the plaintiff and/or the religious studies teacher, as the complaint did not sufficiently plead that YCQ knew or should have known of the religious studies teacher’s propensity for the type of conduct at issue … . While it is true that such causes of action need not be pleaded with specificity … , the complaint merely asserted the bare legal conclusion that YCQ “knew or should have known of [the religious studies teacher’s] propensity to sexually abuse minor students,” without providing any factual allegations that the religious studies teacher’s sexual abuse of the plaintiff was foreseeable … . Kessler v Yeshiva of Cent. Queens, 2024 NY Slip Op 05337, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act case alleging negligent retention and negligent retention of a teacher who allegedly sexually abused a student, the bare allegation that the teacher’s employer knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity was not enough to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Allegations which amount to bare legal conclusions will not be considered on a motion to dismiss.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE WERE WARRANTED; THE VIDEO FOOTAGE FOR THE DAY OF THE FALL HAD BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DELETED BEFORE THE PRESERVATION LETTER WAS RECEIVED; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS HAD PRESERVED 52 SECONDS OF VIDEO SHOWING JUST BEFORE THE FALL, THE FALL AND PLAINTIFF WALKING AWAY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the restrictions placed on defendants’ presentation of evidence of liability relevant to plaintiff’s slip and fall constituted an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff fell on March 24, 2018, and defendants received a letter requesting that 12 hours of video footage be preserved on April 9, 2018. By April 9 the video had been automatically deleted. Defendants had preserved 52 seconds of the video which included just before the fall, the fall, and plaintiff walking away:

The plaintiff did not establish that the defendants were placed on notice that the video evidence might be needed for future litigation before the surveillance footage was automatically deleted … . Further, the defendants’ preservation of only a portion of the surveillance footage did not indicate a culpable state of mind, as the defendants’ representative averred in an affidavit that, on the date of the accident, she saved a 52-second clip of the incident. The representative testified at her deposition that to locate this clip, she had entered the date and time that the alleged accident occurred, and she averred that, by the time she received the preservation letter, the surveillance footage had been automatically deleted … . In addition, the plaintiff did not establish that the absence of the additional surveillance footage deprived her of the ability to prove her case … . De Abreu v Syed Rests. Enters., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05326, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: The criteria for spoliation of evidence were not met by the facts here. The video footage for the day of the fall was automatically deleted before the preservation letter was received. Defendants preserved video footage of just before the fall, the fall and plaintiff walking away.​

 

,

WHEN THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS) ASSUMED CUSTODY OF CLAIMANT, IT OWED CLAIMANT A DUTY TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST FORESEEABLE HARM, INCLUDING SEXUAL ASSAULT; THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THE STATE DID NOT OWE CLAIMANT A SPECIAL DUTY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined this Child Victims Act action against the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) should not have been dismissed on the ground the state did not owe plaintiff a special duty:

For the reasons set forth in our recent decision in A.J. v State of New York (___ AD3d ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 04231 [3d Dept 2024]), we reverse. As in that case, claimant was in OCFS’s custody at the time he was allegedly assaulted. “When a government entity assumes custody of a person, thus diminishing that person’s ability to self-protect or access those usually charged with such protection, that entity owes to that person a duty of protection against harms that are reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances”(A.J. v State of New York,2024 NY Slip Op 04231 at *2). Because defendant owed claimant a duty of care, the claim stated a cause of action and the motion to dismiss should have been denied. McTighe v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05251, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: In the Third Department, the claimant in a Child Victims Act case against the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) alleging sexual abuse while in its custody does need to demonstrate the state owed claimant a special duty. The state is deemed to have assumed a duty to protect children in its custody from foreseeable harm.

 

, ,

CLAIMANT-INMATE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN HER CUBICLE IN A DORMITORY WITHOUT DOORS WHILE THE CORRECTION OFFICER (CO) GUARDING THE DORMITORY WAS ASLEEP; CLAIMANT PRESENTED ADEQUATE PROOF THE ASSAULT WAS FORESEEABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant-inmate in this negligent supervision action presented sufficient proof the sexual assault by another inmate was foreseeable. Claimant was in a dormitory with cubicles and no doors. A male inmate crawled into claimant’s cubicle when the correction officer (CO) guarding dormitory was asleep:

… [T]he question is not what the State actually knows, but what it should have known, i.e., whether defendant has constructive notice … . There was a preponderance of evidence that defendant was aware that this claimant was at risk of sexual assault because defendant’s own sexual victimization risk screening procedures, and placement in the 10-1 dorm’s PREA cube as a result of her complaints about harassment immediately before the sexual assault, identified her as being in a class of individuals vulnerable to the risk of sexual assault … . Moreover, placement in the PREA cube generally, and in this case specifically, is a tacit acknowledgement that individuals who are identified as vulnerable and live in a general population dormitory consisting of a communal sleeping area, must have more protection at night. A sleeping CO negates this added protection at this critical time. Thus, it was not necessary for defendant to have notice that COs generally, or this CO specifically, slept during shifts. It is not unreasonable to expect that COs are conscious, alert and attentive while on duty monitoring an open-floor-plan dormitory of incarcerated individuals in a maximum-security prison. R.S. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05253, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Here there was sufficient proof that the sexual assault by another inmate was foreseeable. Claimant was recognized as vulnerable to sexual assault, was placed in a dormitory cubicle with no door, and the correction officer assigned to guard the dormitory was asleep. The fact that the CO’s falling asleep may not have been foreseeable was not the determinative issue.​

 

, ,

THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE 911 DISPATCHER AND THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS CONSTITUTED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN THE PERFORMANCE A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION; THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY DEFENSE INSULATED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipal defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligence action stemming from decisions made by emergency personnel in response to a 911 call. The emergency services, including the dispatch of a “Basic Life Support” (BLS), as opposed to an “Advanced Life Support” (ALS) ambulance, and the attempts to intubate the unresponsive plaintiff rather than to immediately transport her to the hospital, were deemed the exercise of discretion while performing a government function. Discretionary actions taken in performance of a government function are insulated from liability by the government-function-immunity defense:

“[W]hen both the special duty requirement and the governmental function immunity defense are asserted in a negligence case, the rule that emerges is that government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general” … . In other words, in a negligence action where the municipality has raised the governmental function immunity defense, a plaintiff may only hold the municipality liable for actions taken in its governmental capacity where (1) a special duty exists and (2) the municipality’s actions were ministerial in nature and not the result of discretionary decision-making … . * * *

The defendants demonstrated that the 911 dispatcher’s decision, among other things, to send a BLS ambulance rather than an ALS ambulance “was discretionary and, therefore, protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity” … . Under the circumstances presented, the defendants also established that the EMTs exercised their discretion in declining to immediately transport [plaintiff] to the nearby hospital and to instead wait for the paramedics in the ALS ambulance to arrive. Similarly, the defendants demonstrated that the actions of the paramedics resulted from discretionary decision-making, including with regard to the type of treatment to render … . Walker-Rodriguez v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05237, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise but complete one-paragraph compilation of all the issues associated with municipal liability for negligence–proprietary versus government function, special duty, discretionary versus ministerial acts, etc.

 

, ,

THE NEARLY THREE-YEAR GAP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF’S KNEE SURGERY AND HIS SEEING THE SURGEON TO COMPLAIN OF KNEE PAIN DID NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to render the action timely. Plaintiff had knee surgery and did not see the surgeon again for nearly three years when he experienced pain. He had not seen any other orthopedic surgeons in the interim:

Defendants fail to establish that plaintiff’s claims involving treatment of her right knee before May 21, 2016 are time-barred. Given the evidence of “an ongoing relationship of trust and confidence between the patient and physician,” the record presents disputed issues of fact regarding whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies, thus precluding dismissal at this stage of the litigation … . The 34-month gap between the one-year postoperative follow-up visit after plaintiff’s right total knee replacement and her next complaint to defendant Dr. Steven B. Haas, M.D. about pain in his right knee does not prevent application of the doctrine as a matter of law, as plaintiff visited no orthopedic surgeon other than defendant Dr. Haas during that period, and she returned to Dr. Haas to address increased pain in her right knee, which even he determined would require revision surgery. Karanevich-Dono v Haas, 2024 NY Slip Op 05137, First Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff had knee surgery and did not see the surgeon again for nearly three years to complain of knee pain. Plaintiff did not see any other orthopedic surgeon in the interim. There was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied to render the medial malpractice action timely.

 

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