You are here: / Negligence

DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact about the storm in progress proof precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this slip and fall case. In support of the motion, defendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony and climatological data. Because there was a conflict between those two sources of evidence, summary judgment was not available:

​

“Under the storm in progress rule,’ a landowner generally cannot be held liable for injuries sustained as a result of slippery conditions that occur during an ongoing storm, or for a reasonable time thereafter'” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … based on the storm in progress rule. The climatological data submitted by the defendants in support of their motion contradicted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which the defendants also submitted, as to whether precipitation was falling at or near the time of the accident. Since the evidence submitted by the defendants was in conflict and, thus, could not establish, prima facie, that the storm in progress rule applied … , the court should have denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Pecoraro v Tribuzio, 2017 NY Slip Op 08386, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STORM IN PROGRESS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 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 not have been granted. Defendants failed to show that they did not create the dangerous snow-ice condition or have notice of it:

​

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Their own submissions, which included, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and the defendants’ superintendent, in addition to a certified weather report for the month of February 2014, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to the whether the defendants caused or exacerbated the alleged icy condition on the subject sidewalk or had notice of it. The plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, she slipped on ice on the path which had been shoveled through the snow on the sidewalk adjacent to her apartment building. She also testified that the path was slippery when she had used it the night before and that she did not observe any salt or sand on it. Although the building superintendent testified as to general snow removal procedures for the building, he could not remember what he did on the date of the accident and did not have an independent recollection of removing snow from the outside of the building at any time on either February 3, 2014, or February 4, 2014. His testimony conflicted with statements set forth in his affidavit, submitted in support of the motion, in which he stated that he personally checked the path at issue at the end of his shift at 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2014, and did not observe any snowy and/or icy condition. Such contradictory statements raise an issue of credibility which cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment … . Further, the certified weather report demonstrated that there was an accumulation of 6.7 inches of snow as of 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2014, approximately 26½ hours prior to the accident, and that no snow fell on the date of the accident. Consequently, the defendants did not establish, prima facie, that they neither created the alleged hazardous icy condition on the sidewalk nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Michalska v Coney Is. Site 1824 Houses, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08365, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE WRONG TOOTH WAS EXTRACTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the lack of informed consent cause of action were properly denied. Plaintiff had signed a consent form but alleged the wrong tooth was extracted:

​

“[L]ack of informed consent is a distinct cause of action requiring proof of facts not contemplated by an action based merely on allegations of negligence” … . “To establish a cause of action for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . “The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law”… .

​

… Supreme Court properly determined that triable issues of fact precluded an award of summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent insofar as asserted against them. The deposition testimony of the parties and the generic consent form signed by the plaintiff revealed a factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff was adequately informed about the extraction, namely which tooth would be removed… . In addition, each of the expert opinions submitted on the summary judgment motions was in agreement that a root canal was a viable alternative treatment to the extraction of tooth number four. Thus, there were triable issues of fact as to whether a reasonably prudent patient in the plaintiff’s position would have undergone the extraction of tooth number four if he or she had been fully informed … . Godel v Goldstein, 2017 NY Slip Op 08260, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE WRONG TOOTH WAS EXTRACTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT, DENTAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE WRONG TOOTH WAS EXTRACTED (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE WRONG TOOTH WAS EXTRACTED (SECOND DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE WRONG TOOTH WAS EXTRACTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY) DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE WINDOW WHICH ALLEGEDLY SLAMMED SHUT SEVERING A PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S FINGER, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord (NYC Housing Authority) should have been granted summary judgment in this personal injury action. Plaintiff alleged a window in his apartment failed to stay open and slammed shut, severing a portion of a finger. Apparently a window had been repaired by the landlord about a year before, but no subsequent complaints about windows were made:

​

“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” … . Here, with respect to the negligent maintenance claim, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create the alleged injury-producing condition or have actual or constructive notice of the condition … . The evidence showed that, more than one year prior to the incident, a window in the living room of the subject apartment had been repaired following an inspection by the defendant, and that there had been no complaints about the windows in the apartment following the repair. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

The defendant also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the remaining theories of liability by demonstrating that they had not been included in the notice of claim … . Cotto v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 08258, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY) DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE WINDOW WHICH ALLEGEDLY SLAMMED SHUT SEVERING A PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S FINGER, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT  (OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY) DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE WINDOW WHICH ALLEGEDLY SLAMMED SHUT SEVERING A PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S FINGER, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, NEGLIGENCE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY) DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE WINDOW WHICH ALLEGEDLY SLAMMED SHUT SEVERING A PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S FINGER, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, THEORIES NOT INCLUDED IN NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendants were in the far right lane when plaintiff attempted to turn right from the center lane, crossing in front of defendants:

​

[The] evidence demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128(a) and 1163, and that defendant driver was free from fault in the happening of the accident … . This evidence also demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the subject accident.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s affidavit, which contradicted admissions he made in the certified motor vehicle report, was insufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because it merely raised what appear to be feigned issues of fact … . Park v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08279, Second Dept 11-22-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENCE,  PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CROSSING IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT DRIVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN FROM THE CENTER LANE VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSING PAPERS RAISED ONLY FEIGNED ISSUES OF FACT (SECOND DEPT))

,

STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint in this negligent supervision case was properly dismissed. The student plaintiff had cerebral palsy and was being supervised at recess by an aide who was ten feet aware. The student was playing a game which was supervised by an athletic director when the student plaintiff and another student collided:

​

The infant plaintiff … [alleged] that the defendants were negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision, and in allowing the infant plaintiff to participate in the wall ball game. … [T]he defendants moved for summary judgment … contending that they provided adequate supervision to the children during recess, that the infant plaintiff’s Individualized Education Plan did not restrict him from playing during recess, and that … any alleged failure to provide adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries because the collision occurred suddenly and unexpectedly.

​

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision”… . Schools are not, however, insurers of their students’ safety, and may not be held liable ” for every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another'” … . Moreover, when an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not a proximate cause of the injury … .

Here, the defendants … [demonstrated] that they provided adequate supervision to the infant plaintiff during recess… and, in any event, that the accident was caused by a sudden and spontaneous collision which could not have been prevented by more intense supervision … . Tzimopoulos v Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 08296, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SUPERVISION, SCHOOLS, STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant property maintenance company’s motion for summary judgment in this ice slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff’s testimony about the thickness of the ice raised a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of it. The property owner’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract action against the property maintenance company was properly granted. In the contract, the property maintenance company agreed to purchase liability insurance, which it did not do. An agreement to purchase insurance is not the same as a promise to indemnify and an action on the agreement need not await a judgment in the slip and fall case:

… [T]he record … includes plaintiff’s testimony that there was no lighting in the sidewalk area and no witness was able to contradict her account that there was ice in the area at the time that she fell. Further, there was no proof that anyone had performed a routine inspection of the area after 7:00 a.m. on the day of her alleged fall, i.e., at any time within 10 hours of the fall, but also no proof that there had been further accumulation of snow after the snowfall the day before. … [I]t is clear that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with regard to whether defendant had constructive notice of any dangerous conditions… . The key question to be resolved by the trier of fact is whether, during this 10-hour lapse of time … there was further precipitation that created a dangerous or unsafe condition on the sidewalk and, if so, whether there was sufficient time for defendant[s] … “to reasonably have discovered and remedied it” … .Plaintiff’s description of the thickness and extent of ice on the sidewalk, if accepted, is relevant to the factual question of how long it was present and whether it was visible and apparent such that it would have been discovered upon routine inspection, with sufficient time to remedy it … . Calvitti v 40 Garden, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08241, Third Dept 11-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (SLIP AND FALL, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

TRANSMISSION REPAIR COMPANY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A TRUCK REPAIR CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER, IF THE TRUCK HAD BEEN EQUIPPED WITH A FUNCTIONING NEUTRAL INTERLOCK SYSTEM IT WOULD NOT HAVE LURCHED BACK, KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s decedent could properly have been found to be a third-party beneficiary of a contract between a transmission repair company (Advanced) and plaintiff’s decedent’s employer (CCC).  CCC owned a garbage truck which was repaired by Advanced. There was no neutral interlock system on the truck. Such a system would have prevented the truck from lurching backward and pinning plaintiff’s decedent between the truck and a dumpster:

 

… [T]he record demonstrates that Advanced owed the decedent a duty as a third-party beneficiary of its contractual relationship between itself and CCC … . If the parties to the contract intended to confer a direct benefit on the decedent, a duty is owed to the decedent… . Although there was no written contract between the contracting parties, an intent to confer a direct benefit on the decedent may also be inferred from the circumstances …  including the parties’ oral agreement and course of conduct … .

An employee is not automatically a third-party beneficiary of a service contract between his or her employer and another party … . However, if the employer’s intent was to benefit its employees, third-party beneficiary status may be inferred …

At trial, the plaintiffs asserted that a proximate cause of the accident was the absence of a functioning neutral interlock system on the truck. The neutral interlock system would have prevented the truck from going backward while garbage was being loaded in the truck. CCC recognized that a neutral interlock system was an important safety feature of the truck. That system was part of the transmission system, which was serviced by Advanced. At trial, Advanced acknowledged that when the truck was road tested in November 2006, some six months prior to the accident, CCC should have been informed if a neutral interlock system was not working or not present, since this was one of the primary safety features of the truck.

The evidence indicated that Advance and CCC recognized that the neutral interlock system was an important safety feature. Further, it is clear from the record that Advance and CCC recognized that this safety feature’s primary benefit was to CCC’s employees who loaded the garbage trucks. Accordingly, it could be inferred that the decedent was a third-party beneficiary of the contractual relationship between CCC and Advanced. Vargas v Crown Container Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08297, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DUTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, TRANSMISSION REPAIR COMPANY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A TRUCK REPAIR CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER, IF THE TRUCK HAD BEEN EQUIPPED WITH A FUNCTIONING NEUTRAL INTERLOCK SYSTEM IT WOULD NOT HAVE LURCHED BACK, KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, DUTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, TRANSMISSION REPAIR COMPANY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A TRUCK REPAIR CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER, IF THE TRUCK HAD BEEN EQUIPPED WITH A FUNCTIONING NEUTRAL INTERLOCK SYSTEM IT WOULD NOT HAVE LURCHED BACK, KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (DUTY TO EMPLOYEE ARISING FROM EMPLOYER’S CONTRACT FOR REPAIR, TRANSMISSION REPAIR COMPANY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A TRUCK REPAIR CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER, IF THE TRUCK HAD BEEN EQUIPPED WITH A FUNCTIONING NEUTRAL INTERLOCK SYSTEM IT WOULD NOT HAVE LURCHED BACK, KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (NEGLIGENCE, DUTY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, TRANSMISSION REPAIR COMPANY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A TRUCK REPAIR CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S EMPLOYER, IF THE TRUCK HAD BEEN EQUIPPED WITH A FUNCTIONING NEUTRAL INTERLOCK SYSTEM IT WOULD NOT HAVE LURCHED BACK, KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))

DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this car accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff apparently made a left turn in front of defendant’s car which was in the on-coming lane. Defendant struck plaintiff’s car:

​

“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”… . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, the operator of a vehicle intending to turn left within an intersection must yield the right-of-way to any oncoming vehicle which is within the intersection or so close to it as to constitute an immediate hazard … . A violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se … .

The operator of an oncoming vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing operator will yield in compliance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law … . A driver is negligent where he or she failed to see that which, through proper use of his or her senses, he or she should have seen … . The driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found to have contributed to the happening of the accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident … .

​

Here, in support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties. The defendant attested that she never saw the front of the plaintiff’s vehicle and that when she first saw the plaintiff’s vehicle, which was “moving like a snail,” she saw the middle part of the vehicle directly ahead of her. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, her freedom from comparative fault and that the plaintiff’s alleged violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Aponte v Vani, 2017 NY Slip Op 08252, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ( DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT)

, ,

MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars to add a new theory of liability should have been granted in this medical malpractice action. The amendment was based upon plaintiffs’ expert’s disclosures and the motion to amend was made shortly after the expert raised the issue:

​

While leave to amend a bill of particulars is generally freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise (see CPLR 3025[b]), where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging a new theory of liability not raised in the claim or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and “judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious”… . In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom … . Here, the delay would not have been prejudicial since the plaintiffs’ amendment sought to include a theory of causation of the decedent’s death raised in the defendants’ expert disclosures. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not delay in seeking the amendment after receiving the defendants’ expert disclosures, and the defendants were permitted further discovery … . Moore v Franklin Hosp. Med. Center-North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., 2017 NY Slip Op 08263, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025[b] (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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