You are here: / Negligence
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s motion for summary judgment in this front-end loader/pedestrian accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when the front-end loader backed up over her in a municipal parking lot at night. The parking lot was deemed a “highway” for purposes of the applicability of the “reckless disregard for safety” standard for machinery used in highway work. But the Third Department held there were questions of fact about whether the reckless disregard standard was met. The court noted that the usual safety precautions used during the day were not used at night, when the accident occurred:

​

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) provides that the safety rules and regulations governing the operation of vehicles upon highways (i.e., the “rules of the road”) will “not apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway . . . [or] to hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway” . … [T]he Legislature has provided vehicles engaged in such road work the benefit of a lesser standard of care … — rather than having to establish ordinary negligence, an injured plaintiff seeking damages must instead demonstrate that “any person . . . [or] operator of a motor vehicle or other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” acted with a “reckless disregard for the safety of others” … . * * *

​

While we agree with Supreme Court that the [parking] lot constituted a highway so as to invoke the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), that determination, standing alone, did not serve to insulate defendants from all potential liability for their actions that evening and entitle them to summary judgment. … Given [the] acknowledgment that the Village had a safety zone policy in place that called for the establishment of work zones when heavy machinery was being operated in parking lots during the daytime and chose not to implement it during nighttime operations, [the] candid testimony that a flagperson would have been helpful and may have been able to stop plaintiff before she crossed behind the loader and the lack of any admissible expert opinion dispositive of defendants’ claim that it did not act with recklessness, defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law … . Freitag v Village of Potsdam, 2017 NY Slip Op 07919, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING LOTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS PARKING LOT FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESS DISREGARD, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY STANDARD WAS MET IN THIS FRONT-END LOADER ACCIDENT CASE, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the city’s motion for summary judgment was properly dismissed in this traffic accident case involving a police car. The court held that the officer was engaged in an emergency operation when he went through a red light at an intersection and struck plaintiff’s car. Even if the siren and emergency lights were not on, the officer was authorized to proceed through the intersection:

​

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since the record shows that defendant Kohler, a police officer, was operating a police vehicle while performing an emergency operation and did not recklessly disregard the safety of others before the accident happened … . The fact that Koehler was mistaken in believing that plaintiff was stopping her vehicle when he proceeded to pass through the red light did not render his conduct reckless. Koehler testified that as he approached the intersection, he reduced his speed and looked left and right. He was traveling approximately 10 miles above the speed limit when the accident occurred. Koehler attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiff by braking hard and turning the steering wheel to the right upon realizing that plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the intersection … . The fact that there is a question as to whether the police vehicle’s lights and siren were activated is not material because Koehler was not required to activate either of these devices in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of passing through a red light … . Lewis v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 07785, First Dept 11-9-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY OPERATION, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY OPERATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/SIREN (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY LIGHTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE THROUGH A RED LIGHT EVEN IF THE SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE NOT ACTIVATED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s negligence cause of action against the school district and another student were properly dismissed under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiff, a student, was injured in a basketball game during gym class when he was allegedly kicked by the student defendant. Plaintiff chose to play basketball among other possible activities. Therefore he could not take advantage of the “inherent compulsion” doctrine. Plaintiff’s assertion at the 50-h hearing that he was intentionally kicked did not raise a question of fact because the pleadings did not include an intentional tort or any mention of intentional conduct:

​

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, 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” … . “[B]y freely assuming a known risk, a plaintiff commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk” … . If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the plaintiff has consented to them and the defendant has performed its duty… . However, a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in the activity of basketball and was aware of the risks inherent in the activity, including the possibility of contact or collision with other participants… …

Also contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the application of the inherent compulsion doctrine, which “provides that the defense of assumption of the risk is not a shield from liability, even where the injured party acted despite obvious and evident risks, when the element of voluntariness is overcome by the compulsion of a superior” … . The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he chose to play basketball from a number of options. Consequently, the inherent compulsion doctrine is inapplicable … . Hanson v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07711, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/GYM CLASS EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR INJURY DURING GYM CLASS, INHERENT COMPULSION DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted. An employee of defendant moving company (Fisher) left a desk that was upright (on its side) on a dolly unattended. The desk fell over, injuring plaintiff:

​

“A trial court’s grant of a CPLR 4401 motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where the trial court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” … . In considering the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the court must afford the nonmoving party “every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented” … . …

The defendants do not dispute that they, through their employee, created the condition that the plaintiff alleges existed. There was no evidence, and the defendants did not assert, that Fisher exercised reasonable care when he left the desk unattended on the dolly. The defendants’ contention that an issue of fact existed as to whether the accident happened at all is unsupported by the record and based upon speculation … . Based on this record, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the evidence … . Canale v L & M Assoc. of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07701, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4401 (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant driver was not entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Video showed plaintiff darting out on his bicycle into the street. However defendant driver is obligated to see what can be seen and did not demonstrate freedom from comparative fault as a matter of law:

​

“A driver is bound to see what is there to be seen with the proper use of his [or her] senses, and there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” … . In order for a defendant driver to establish entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability in a motor vehicle collision case, the driver must demonstrate, prima facie, inter alia, that he or she kept the proper lookout, or that his or her alleged negligence, if any, did not contribute to the accident … .

​

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DESPITE VIDEO SHOWING PLAINTIFF DARTING INTO TRAFFIC (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff had the right of way when defendant (Mack) turned on his turn signal and attempted a u-turn. Plaintiff had only one or two seconds to react and was not, therefore, comparatively negligent:

​

The plaintiff established that he was traveling with the right-of-way when Mack, who had stopped in a parking or merging lane to the right of the plaintiff’s lane of travel, suddenly attempted to make a U-turn in front of the plaintiff’s vehicle and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Although Mack testified at his deposition that he had activated his left-turn signal before he began to move his vehicle, the plaintiff, who had the right-of-way, was nevertheless entitled to anticipate that Mack would obey the traffic law requiring him to yield … . The plaintiff testified at his deposition that only one or two seconds passed between the time Mack’s vehicle suddenly pulled out and the collision, such that, while he attempted to brake and veer to the left, he could not avoid the collision. Indeed, Mack admitted that only a “[s]plit second” passed between the time he moved his vehicle and the collision. “[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . Criollo v Maggies Paratransit Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 07704, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT))

WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR NEAR THE SHOWER WAS NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE SHOWER AND WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the complaint in this slip and fall case was properly dismissed. Plaintiff’s daughter slipped and fell on water on the bathroom floor on defendants’ property. The court held that water on the floor near the shower was not actionable:

​

Defendants’ submissions established that the daughter slipped on the bathroom floor when she stepped out of the shower to retrieve a brush while the water was running. The daughter stated during her deposition that, although the shower curtain had been closed and no water was falling outside the bathtub prior to the accident, as a result of her opening the curtain while the water was running, there was some water on the floor around the bathtub when she stepped out of the bathtub. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, ” a wet floor—especially in a bathroom where one can expect some water to make its way out of the shower to the floor—is not enough, standing alone, to establish negligence’ ” …  Here, defendants established that the amount of water present on the floor “was a condition that was necessarily incidental’ to the use of the shower[] . . . and thus that it did not by itself constitute a dangerous condition”… . Defendants further established that the accident was not attributable to a defect in the floor or the bath towel that they provided to the daughter, which she placed on the floor beside the bathtub… . Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that a dangerous condition existed, we conclude that defendants met their burden by establishing that they neither created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof … . Keller v Keller, 2017 NY Slip Op 06773, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

NEGLIGENCE (WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR NEAR THE SHOWER WAS NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE SHOWER AND WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR NEAR THE SHOWER WAS NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE SHOWER AND WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/BATHROOMS (SLIP AND FALL, WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR NEAR THE SHOWER WAS NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE SHOWER AND WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL (SLIP AND FALL, WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR NEAR THE SHOWER WAS NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE SHOWER AND WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT)

,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff (Kelly) should not have been allowed to file a late notice of claim in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No reasonable explanation was offered and defendant housing authority did not have timely notice of the substance of the claim:

​

… Kelly failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority]. Kelly’s excuse, that he first discovered the identity of the owner of the subject walkway at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, arose from a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter, which is an unacceptable excuse … . Even if Kelly made an excusable error in identifying the public corporation upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, he failed to proffer any explanation for the additional seven-month delay between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

Furthermore, NYCHA did not acquire timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting Kelly’s claim. Although the City was served with a notice of claim within 90 days after the accident and conducted a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing about 5½ months after the accident, notice to the City cannot be imputed to NYCHA … . Moreover, the notice of claim, served together with the application upon NYCHA almost 10 months after the 90-day statutory period had elapsed, was served too late to provide NYCHA with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … .

Finally, Kelly presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that his delay in serving a notice of claim upon NYCHA did not substantially prejudice NYCHA in defending on the merits … . Kelly v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06640, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM,  PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim should have been denied. Although the school was aware of the student’s injury, it was not timely made aware of the negligent supervision claim. The fact that the school did not demonstrate prejudice from the delay was not determinative:

​

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish that the School District acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the child’s accident or a reasonable time thereafter. Although the school nurse prepared a “Notification of Injury” form, which the petitioner signed nearly two months after the accident, this form merely indicated that the child received a laceration and contusion on the outer corner of his left eye when he fell on the steps of the large slide. Thus, the form did not provide the School District with timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claims that it was negligent in supervising its students, and in the hiring and training of school personnel … . Therefore, the School District had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligence … .

… [P]etitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The child’s infancy alone, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … . Moreover, to the extent that the petitioner attributed her delay to the need to determine that the proper entity to sue was the School District, a readily ascertainable fact, such a claim does not constitute a reasonable excuse… .

While the petitioner did satisfy her initial burden of showing a lack of substantial prejudice to the School District as a result of her late notice, and the School District failed to make a “particularized evidentiary showing” of substantial prejudice in response … , the presence or absence of any one factor is not necessarily determinative in deciding whether permission to serve a late notice of claim should be granted… . A balancing of the relevant factors … demonstrates that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition … . McClancy v Plainedge Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 06651, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against a police officer whose police car struck plaintiff should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was standing in the road at the double yellow lines when the officer, responding to an emergency call, moved over the double yellow line:

​

Defendants demonstrated that defendant police officer was engaged in an “emergency operation” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, by submitting evidence that the officer was responding to a radio call about a “man with a gun” when her police vehicle struck plaintiff … . Defendants’ evidence also showed that the officer was engaged in conduct privileged under the statute at the time of the accident, since her vehicle straddled and then crossed the double yellow lines, in disregard of regulations “governing directions of movement” (VTL § 1104[b][4]). Accordingly, defendants demonstrated that the officer’s conduct is to be assessed under the statute’s “reckless disregard” standard… .

Defendants further demonstrated that the officer did not operate the police vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others … . The officer testified that traffic warranted moving her vehicle left and operating it on the double yellow lines to avoid the stopped vehicles to her right and ahead of her. The officer had no duty to engage her sirens or lights, as she was operating a police vehicle, and her failure to do so was not evidence of recklessness …. Moreover, the officer testified that she attempted to avoid plaintiff, who was standing on the double yellow lines, by swerving behind her, an assertion that plaintiff supported with her own testimony … .

​

In opposition, plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that there was no emergency, and failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others. Green v Zarella, 2017 NY Slip Op 06599, First Dept 9-26-1

 

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, RECKLESS DISREGARD, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/RECKLESS DISREGARD (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, (POLICE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY AND WAS NOT ACTING IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN THE POLICE CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STANDING IN THE ROAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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