You are here: / 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).

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))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY HAD TIME TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A CAR CROSSING HIS PATH TO MAKE A LEFT TURN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a question of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant in this truck-car intersection collision case. The defendant truck driver, Head, alleged the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger (Sinclair) made a left turn across the truck’s path and Head did not have time to avoid the collision. However an eyewitness, Fuller, testified there was sufficient time for the truck driver to take evasive action:

​

In this context, Head “was bound to see what[,] by the proper use of [his] senses[,] [he] might have seen” and, if the circumstances were as described by Fuller, and if Head should have observed Sinclair’s car turning left, “then the accident would be a reasonably foreseeable risk and [Head] would have had a duty to avoid striking [Sinclair], if it were possible to do so”… . Fuller’s materially different version of the accident, if credited, could support the conclusion that Head had adequate time and opportunity to observe Sinclair’s turning car and take evasive action … . That is, Head had “a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision” and, unless he had “only seconds to react” to Sinclair’s failure to yield the right-of-way, an issue disputed by plaintiff’s evidence, Head may be partly at fault … . Debra F. v New Hope View Farm, 2017 NY Slip Op 08429, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY HAD TIME TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A CAR CROSSING HIS PATH TO MAKE A LEFT TURN (THIRD DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY HAD TIME TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A CAR CROSSING HIS PATH TO MAKE A LEFT TURN (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (COMPARATIVE FAULT,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY HAD TIME TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A CAR CROSSING HIS PATH TO MAKE A LEFT TURN (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT OF WAY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, COMPARATIVE FAULT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY HAD TIME TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A CAR CROSSING HIS PATH TO MAKE A LEFT TURN (THIRD DEPT))

MANNER IN WHICH DECORATIONS WERE STACKED IN A STORE DID NOT PRESENT A FORESEEABLE RISK, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant store’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted because the manner in which Christmas decorations were stacked did not present a foreseeable risk. Plaintiff was taking down a Christmas decoration when things started to fall from the shelf:

​

Plaintiff testified that while taking down garland, she felt a snag on the garland and, when she turned back and saw that the garland was attached to a loop of garland above it, she saw — through her peripheral vision — “stuff” starting to fall and, when she started to move her feet, she fell. Plaintiff further testified that she did not trip over anything and was not struck by anything before she fell, nor did she strike anything on the way down as she fell. In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted defendant’s Holiday Sales Planner and Stocking Procedural Manual. Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit of plaintiff’s expert witness — a retail sales merchandising specialist, consultant and planner — who attested to the proper, correct and safe way to install, stock and display consumer products and merchandise for sale to the public in retail stores. However, such testimony failed to demonstrate how the location and stocking of the garland presented a foreseeable risk. Therefore, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that plaintiff’s injury was reasonably foreseeable … . Supreme Court properly found that there was “nothing about the nature of packages of garland falling from above that would lead a reasonable person to foresee said garland knocking a person to the ground and/or breaking a person’s wrist.” Supreme Court also correctly found that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply. “The doctrine cannot be used where, as here, the defendant against whom the doctrine is asserted owes no duty in connection with the mechanism that caused the injury” … . Parke v Dollar Tree, Inc.2017 NY Slip Op 08427, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (FORESEEABILITY, MANNER IN WHICH DECORATIONS WERE STACKED IN A STORE DID NOT PRESENT A FORESEEABLE RISK, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/FORESEEABILITY (NEGLIGENCE, MANNER IN WHICH DECORATIONS WERE STACKED IN A STORE DID NOT PRESENT A FORESEEABLE RISK, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (FORESEEABILITY, MANNER IN WHICH DECORATIONS WERE STACKED IN A STORE DID NOT PRESENT A FORESEEABLE RISK, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (SLIP AND FALL, MANNER IN WHICH DECORATIONS WERE STACKED IN A STORE DID NOT PRESENT A FORESEEABLE RISK, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death was properly granted. Plaintiff’s daughter died after the lawsuit had begun. She had ingested a harmful substance at a festival and the complaint alleged the failure to prevent the use of drugs at the festival and the inadequacy of medical treatment facilities at the festival. Defendants argued there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the ingestion of the harmful substance and plaintiff’s daughter’s death:

​

… [D]efendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating either prejudice or hindrance and, on these facts, they cannot credibly claim surprise from the proposed amendment… . Moreover, we have previously recognized that plaintiff has a viable negligence cause of action based upon allegations that decedent’s injuries were caused by defendants’ failure to ensure that she received adequate and timely emergency medical care … . Defendants have not demonstrated that the amendment, which adds a cause of action for wrongful death based upon that negligence … , is “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … .

To the extent that defendants argue that the motion for leave to amend to add a cause of action for wrongful death must be supported by competent medical proof showing a causal connection between their alleged negligence and decedent’s death, they are incorrect. Prior decisions have held that, “[w]here a plaintiff seeks to amend a complaint alleging medical malpractice to add a cause of action for wrongful death, such motion must be accompanied by ‘competent medical proof showing a causal connection between the alleged negligence and the decedent’s death'” … . Matter of Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08433, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINT, AMENDMENT OF (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH (CIVIL PROCEDURE, AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER DIED AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD BEGUN, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED, NO MEDICAL PROOF OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the truck defendants’ (Crown and Kumar’s) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Another defendant, Ferreira, had cut the truck off attempting to make a right turn from the left lane. Ferreira’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident:

​

Ferreira’s testimony indicated that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a), which states that “[a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.” Therefore, she was negligent as a matter of law … . The appellants further established that Kumar was not negligent, since he took prompt evasive action by applying his brakes hard.

Thus, by demonstrating that Ferreira was negligent and that her negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff and Ferreira failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been granted. Pipinias v Ferreira, 2017 NY Slip Op 08400, Second Dept 11-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE PER SE,  DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHICH CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE, CO-DEFENDANTS, WHOSE TRUCK COLLIDED WITH THE CAR DRIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHO VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

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))

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