You are here: / Negligence

RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined an indoor rock-climber’s action against the defendant rock-climbing facility properly survived defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The released signed by the plaintiff was invalid pursuant to the General Obligations Law. And the assumption of risk doctrine did not preclude the suit because the complaint alleged a concealed risk (a gap between two mats concealed by velcro):

​

… [T]he release of liability that the injured plaintiff signed is void under General Obligations Law § 5-326 because the defendant’s facility is recreational in nature … .

​

“Relieving an owner or operator of a sporting venue from liability for inherent risks of engaging in a sport is justified when a consenting participant is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . Moreover, “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant 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” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies. The defendant submitted the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which reveals triable issues of fact as to whether the gap in the mats constituted a concealed risk and whether the injured plaintiff’s accident involved an inherent risk of rock climbing … . Since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, its motion was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers… . Lee v Brooklyn Boulders, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08660, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (INDOOR ROCK CLIMBING, RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (INDOOR ROCK CLIMBING, RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (INDOOR ROCK CLIMBING, RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (INDOOR ROCK CLIMBING, RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/RECREATIONAL FACILITY (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, (INDOOR ROCK CLIMBING, RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the wrongful death action against state police officers who stopped plaintiff’s decedent (for following too closely) but did not issue a traffic ticket was properly dismissed. Decedent told the officers he had had two drinks, was tired and would call his brother to take him home. The officers left decedent on the side of the road. Decedent was later found dead in his car. Although decedent’s blood alcohol content was above the legal limit, the officers testified they did not see any signs of intoxication when they spoke with decedent. The court found there was no special relationship between the decedent and the officers and the state was therefore immune from suit:

​

Where, as here, a claim arises out of the performance of an act undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to general police powers … , the governmental entity is immune from liability for the negligent performance of that governmental function, unless it owed a special duty to the injured party… . As relevant here, a special duty arises when the governmental entity “voluntarily assumed a duty to the [injured party] beyond what was owed to the public generally” … . To establish a special duty through voluntary assumption, the injured party must demonstrate that the governmental agents assumed, through promises or actions, an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured party, that the agents knew that inaction could lead to harm, that there was some form of direct contact between the injured party and the agents and that the injured party justifiably relied on the agents’ affirmative undertaking … . Barnes v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08564, Third Dept 12-7-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, WRONGFUL DEATH, STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))/IMMUNITY (STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH, STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE  (NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH, STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH (POLICE, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY,  STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, WRONGFUL DEATH, STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, WRONGFUL DEATH, STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, WRONGFUL DEATH, STATE POLICE STOPPED DECEDENT FOR FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION, AND LEFT WITHOUT ISSUING A TICKET, DECEDENT LATER FOUND DEAD IN HIS CAR, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFICERS AND DECEDENT, STATE IMMUNE FROM SUIT (THIRD DEPT))

,

COUNTY WHICH HAS A WRITTEN-NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM ROAD DEFECTS MAY BE STILL BE LIABLE ABSENT WRITTEN NOTICE UNDER THE HIGHWAY LAW IF IT OTHERWISE HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the defendant county’s motion for summary judgment in this road-defect action by an injured motorcyclist was properly denied. Although the county had a written notice requirement as a prerequisite for an action based upon a road defect, the Highway Law also applies and will impose liability if the county had notice of the defect:

​

The general rule is that if a municipality enacts a prior written notice statute, unless such notice is duly furnished, “a plaintiff may not bring a civil action against a municipality for damages as the result of an injury sustained by reason of a defective . . . highway” … . However, where Highway Law § 139 is applicable — in the case of county roads — “[e]ven if a local law exists requiring prior written notice of a defect, a civil action may be commenced absent such notice against a municipality for injuries resulting from a defect in a highway under its care if the ‘defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition existed for so long a period that the same should have been discovered and remedied in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence'” … . Thus, to establish entitlement to summary judgment, a county must show both that it received no prior written notice of the alleged defect and that it had no actual or constructive notice thereof … . Pasternak v Chenango, 2017 NY Slip Op 08578, Third Dept 12-7-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ROAD DEFECTS, COUNTY WHICH HAS A WRITTEN-NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM ROAD DEFECTS MAY BE STILL BE LIABLE ABSENT WRITTEN NOTICE UNDER THE HIGHWAY LAW IF IT OTHERWISE HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD DEFECTS,  COUNTY WHICH HAS A WRITTEN-NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM ROAD DEFECTS MAY BE STILL BE LIABLE ABSENT WRITTEN NOTICE UNDER THE HIGHWAY LAW IF IT OTHERWISE HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ROAD DEFECTS, COUNTY WHICH HAS A WRITTEN-NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM ROAD DEFECTS MAY BE STILL BE LIABLE ABSENT WRITTEN NOTICE UNDER THE HIGHWAY LAW IF IT OTHERWISE HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS (THIRD DEPT))/WRITTEN NOTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD DEFECTS,  COUNTY WHICH HAS A WRITTEN-NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM ROAD DEFECTS MAY BE STILL BE LIABLE ABSENT WRITTEN NOTICE UNDER THE HIGHWAY LAW IF IT OTHERWISE HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, ROAD DEFECTS, WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT, COUNTY WHICH HAS A WRITTEN-NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM ROAD DEFECTS MAY BE STILL BE LIABLE ABSENT WRITTEN NOTICE UNDER THE HIGHWAY LAW IF IT OTHERWISE HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS (THIRD DEPT))

,

FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ACTION ONLY REQUIRES A CONNECTION BETWEEN A CODE VIOLATION AND A FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY IN A FIRE, NOT A PROXIMATE-CAUSE RELATIONSHIP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff firefighter’s General Municipal Law 205-a cause of action should not have been dismissed. It was alleged that the fire which caused plaintiff’s injury was started by a warming plate that was left on when defendant left her apartment in violation of the NYC Fire Code. Although the defendant’s act was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, the General Municipal Law 205-a cause of action requires only a connection between the injury and a code violation:

​

Plaintiff firefighter was injured while attempting to fight a fire that had originated in defendant’s apartment. Issues of fact exist as to whether defendant was negligent in leaving a warming tray/hot plate plugged into a timer, in the “on” position, when she left her apartment to go to a friend’s home for dinner. The Fire Marshall concluded that the fire originated in the area of the warming tray/hot plate and timer. Although the motion court correctly concluded that defendant’s alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, General Municipal Law § 205-a imposes liability where there is a practical or reasonable connection between a statutory or code violation and the firefighter’s injury or death … . Plaintiff’s expert fire investigator opined that, by leaving the apartment with the electrical heating devices on, defendant delayed the discovery of the fire and allowed it to grow and spread. Accordingly, there is a sufficient connection between defendant’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injury … . The court also improperly found that the New York City Fire Code (Administrative Code of City of NY tit 29, ch 2) § FC 305.4 was inapplicable to the facts of this case. That section is not limited to “combustible waste,” but expressly includes “combustible material.” Moreover, while combustible waste that has economic value to a premises is considered combustible material … , combustible material is not so limited, but is any material capable of combustion. The materials in defendant’s kitchen were clearly combustible. Walsh v Michelson, 2017 NY Slip Op 08616, First Dept 12-7-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ACTION ONLY REQUIRES A CONNECTION BETWEEN A CODE VIOLATION AND A FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY IN A FIRE, NOT A PROXIMATE-CAUSE RELATIONSHIP (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a FIREFIGHTERS (FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ACTION ONLY REQUIRES A CONNECTION BETWEEN A CODE VIOLATION AND A FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY IN A FIRE, NOT A PROXIMATE-CAUSE RELATIONSHIP (FIRST DEPT))/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ACTION ONLY REQUIRES A CONNECTION BETWEEN A CODE VIOLATION AND A FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY IN A FIRE, NOT A PROXIMATE-CAUSE RELATIONSHIP (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a, FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ACTION ONLY REQUIRES A CONNECTION BETWEEN A CODE VIOLATION AND A FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY IN A FIRE, NOT A PROXIMATE-CAUSE RELATIONSHIP (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS BEATEN UP BY OTHER STUDENTS, SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ATTACKERS’ VIOLENT PROPENSITIES AND THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY MEASURES, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school’s (Department of Education’s, DOE’s) motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action should not have been granted. Plaintiff, after a confrontation in the school cafeteria, was later beaten up by the same students involved in the cafeteria confrontation. At least one of the attackers had assaulted a student before and the attackers were known to be in a gang. The Second Department determined the DOE’s proof did not sufficiently demonstrate a lack of notice or the provision of adequate security:

​

Here, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the DOE had actual or constructive notice of the fellow students’ potential for causing harm, and whether, under the circumstances, the DOE provided adequate supervision at the end of the lunch period in the area where the assault occurred… .. The defendants failed to proffer any evidence demonstrating that the DOE lacked actual or constructive notice of any prior violent behavior by any of the infant plaintiff’s assailants. Moreover, given the witnesses’ testimony regarding the disciplinary history of one of the infant plaintiff’s assailants, there were triable issues of fact as to whether the DOE had specific knowledge of that student’s dangerous propensities … . The defendants failed to proffer sufficient evidence demonstrating the general security measures at the school, including the number of school safety officers on duty, where the school safety officers were assigned in the vicinity of the cafeteria and stairwell, and the frequency of violence in the hallways and stairwells between class periods and after lunch.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, they also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether inadequate security was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries… . In determining whether an incident occurs “in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it” … , “[t]he issue is not the speed of the punch, but the circumstances leading up to and surrounding” the incident… .. According to the infant plaintiff’s section 50-h hearing testimony, the four assailants left the cafeteria prior to the end of the lunch period and were able to block access to the stairwell when the lunch period ended. There was an absence of supervisory personnel or security in the subject stairwell when it would be expected that a large number of students would be exiting the cafeteria and using that stairwell … . “Proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury where varying inferences are possible,” and “[p]roper supervision depends largely on the circumstances surrounding the event” … . Here, the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the assault upon the infant plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether adequate supervision would have prevented the assault. K.J. v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08508, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, PLAINTIFF WAS BEATEN UP BY OTHER STUDENTS, SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ATTACKERS’ VIOLENT PROPENSITIES AND THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY MEASURES, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION,   PLAINTIFF WAS BEATEN UP BY OTHER STUDENTS, SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ATTACKERS’ VIOLENT PROPENSITIES AND THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY MEASURES, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF WAS BEATEN UP BY OTHER STUDENTS, SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ATTACKERS’ VIOLENT PROPENSITIES AND THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY MEASURES, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been to the driver of the middle car in this three-car rear-end collision case. The middle driver demonstrated the driver of the last car struck the middle car and propelled the middle car into the first car, driven by plaintiff:

​

“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…). Hence, “[a] rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the moving vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision” … . “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” … .

Here, [the driver of the middle car] established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that his vehicle was slowing down in response to a traffic condition ahead, and that his vehicle was then propelled forward into the plaintiff’s vehicle after his vehicle was struck in the rear by [the car behind]. Pomerantsev v Vladimir Kodinsky, 2017 NY Slip Op 08545, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (NEGLIGENCE, MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint against the village was properly dismissed because the village did not have written notice of the defect which caused injury. Apparently the village had abandoned a manhole in the street and the state had paved over it. An explosion beneath the manhole lifted up plaintiff’s car which came down on the opposite side of the street:

​

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defect which comes within the ambit of the law unless it has received written notice of the alleged defect or dangerous condition, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies … . “Recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement exist where the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a special benefit upon it”… .

Here, the Village established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including an affidavit from the Village Clerk, demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the condition alleged. The Village further established, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence, which was the only exception alleged in the plaintiff’s pleadings …  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village had prior written notice or whether an exception to that requirement applied … . Dibble v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 2017 NY Slip Op 08503, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, WRITTEN NOTICE, EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE,  EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))/WRITTEN NOTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT))

QUESTION FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this elevator accident case was properly denied. The elevator fell from the 20th to the 11th floor. Although defendant demonstrate a lack of notice, there was a question of fact under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:

​

Plaintiff submitted evidence to support each of the elements of res ipsa loquitur, namely “(1) that the occurrence would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, (2) that the injury was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant, and (3) that no act or negligence on the plaintiff’s part contributed to the happening of the event” … .

The testimony of plaintiff, together with that of a witness who was in the elevator with her when the elevator allegedly dropped, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the elevator did in fact drop suddenly … . A free-fall or sudden drop of an elevator does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence … . We reject, as we have previously, defendant’s argument that it lacked exclusive control of the elevator because a passenger in the elevator activated the emergency stop button and jumped to try to stop the free fall once the elevator suddenly dropped … . Although it is not necessary to consider the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert witness, we note that plaintiff’s testimony is also supported by the opinion of her expert, who explained how the accident could have occurred as plaintiff described. The expert affidavit is properly part of the appellate record since it was submitted by defendant and expressly incorporated by plaintiff into her opposition papers. Colon v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 08463, First Dept 12-5-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (ELEVATOR ACCIDENT, QUESTION FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATOR ACCIDENTS (RES IPSA LOQUITUR, QUESTION FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACTUARY FOR AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined several motions to dismiss were properly denied in this action concerning an insolvent workers’ compensation trust. Defendant Regnier provided actuarial services and prepared certain actuarial reports on an annual basis for the trust. In addition to many other causes of action not summarized here, the Third Department held that the negligence and gross negligence causes of action properly survived:

​

We reject Regnier’s assertion that the negligence and gross negligence claims should have been dismissed in their entirety because plaintiff failed to allege that it owed the trust a duty of care. “[A]n actuary, possessing special knowledge, can be held liable for the negligent performance of its services” … . The second amended complaint alleged that Regnier held itself out as a skilled and competent actuary, that Regnier prepared actuarial reports to the trust, and that Regnier failed to provide competent actuarial services. More critically, the second amended complaint further alleged that Regnier knew that the trust would be relying on the accuracy of such reports and that Regnier was aware that its services were employed to represent the trust’s finances. Under these circumstances and viewing the allegations in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that there were sufficient allegations of near privity to survive a motion to dismiss with respect to the negligence and gross negligence claims … . New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Program Risk Mgt., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08426, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACTUARY FOR AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (THIRD DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUSTS (NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACTUARY FOR AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ACTUARY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACTUARY FOR AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (THIRD DEPT))/ACTUARY (NEGLIGENCE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACTUARY FOR AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (THIRD DEPT))

,

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the out-of-possession landlord (AIMCO) was not liable for plaintiff’s injury from a shooting on the sidewalk outside a bar (PJ’s)i n the landlord’s building:

​

Dismissal of the complaint as against AIMCO was proper in this action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when, while standing on the sidewalk outside a bar owned and operated by codefendant [PJ’s], he was shot in the foot. The record demonstrates that AIMCO owned the commercial space and had leased it to PJ’s, and as a premises owner, AIMCO cannot be held liable in negligence for an assault that occurred on a public street over which it exercised no control … .

AIMCO also owed plaintiff no duty of care to prevent the incident since the evidence showed that AIMCO was an out-of-possession landlord when the shooting happened …  and while it had the right to reenter the premises for the purpose of effecting repairs, there is no evidence that it retained control over the premises or was involved with how PJ’s operated its bar … .The 2009 stipulation of settlement between nonparty City of New York, AIMCO and PJ’s regarding a public nuisance action fails to raise a triable issue, because it expired by its own terms before the shooting and did not require AIMCO to do anything with regard to how the bar was being operated. Ballo v AIMCO 2252-2258 ACP, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08443, First Dept 11-3017

 

NEGLIGENCE (OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY (CIVIL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT))/OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST 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