You are here: / Negligence
,

TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant town’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case was properly granted. The court held that the failure to remove ice and snow is a passive in nature and is not an affirmative creation of a dangerous condition that is exempt from the written notice requirement:

Here, the Town established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including an affidavit from its Town Clerk, demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the condition alleged, and that it did not create the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town created the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. The plaintiff’s reliance on San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco (16 NY3d 111) is misplaced. The Town’s failure to remove any snow or ice from the area where the subject accident occurred was passive in nature and does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence excepting it from prior written notice requirements … . Morreale v Town of Smithtown, 2017 NY Slip Op 06361, Second Dept 8-30-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT)/WRITTEN NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE, TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver’s (Kostadinov’s) motion for summary judgment in this bicycle-car accident case should not have been granted. Kostadinov did not eliminate triable questions of fact about his comparative negligence:

Here, Kostadinov failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since the evidence submitted in support of his motion failed to establish that he was free from fault in the happening of the accident, or that the alleged negligence of the plaintiff and Karczewski were the sole proximate causes of the accident … . Specifically, the deposition testimony of all of the parties, submitted by Kostadinov in support of his motion, revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred (see id. at 934) and as to whether the impact between the plaintiff’s bicycle and Karczewski’s vehicle was a foreseeable consequence of Kostadinov reversing his vehicle against the flow of traffic within the subject intersection given the traffic conditions existing at the time of the accident … . Searless v Karczewski, 2017 NY Slip Op 06393, Second Dept 8-30-17

NEGLIGENCE (BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice. The motions were dismissed on procedural grounds because they were filed and served a few days after the 60-day deadline imposed by the local court rules. The courts had been closed when the papers were supposed to be filed due to a storm. The 2nd Department went on to determine the merits. Plaintiff had experienced headaches over a period of years and had sought treatment for them. Eventually a benign brain tumor was discovered. In removing the tumor plaintiff was rendered legally blind. The malpractice action alleged a negligent failure to diagnose the tumor, and lack of informed consent. The court held that the continuing treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations even though the treatment was for headaches, not the tumor, because the presence of the tumor had not been diagnosed. The court went on to find that the informed consent cause of action was not viable because the alleged malpractice was a failure to diagnose, not the negligent performance of a surgical procedure:

… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to continuous treatment. As is well established, “the continuous treatment doctrine tolls the Statute of Limitations for a medical malpractice action when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint” … . In addition, “[w]here the malpractice claim is based on an alleged failure to properly diagnose a condition, the continuous treatment doctrine may apply as long as the symptoms being treated indicate the presence of that condition” … . * * *

… [T]he informed consent claim lacks merit. As we have held, “[a] failure to diagnose cannot be the basis of a cause of action for lack of informed consent unless associated with a diagnostic procedure that involve[s] invasion or disruption of the integrity of the body'” … . Lewis v Rutkovsky, 2017 NY Slip Op 06342, First Dept 8-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined a release plaintiff’s decedent (South) agreed to in 1997 did not preclude the instant suit. South alleged he had been exposed to asbestos made by Texaco on board ships during his long career in the Merchant Marine. South died of mesothelioma. The 1997 release mentioned mesothelioma as a possible result of asbestos exposure but the First Department determined it was not clear South knew he was suffering from mesothemiola at the time he signed the release (in return for $1750.00). The case was analyzed under federal admiralty law law (Jones Act):

… [W]e find that the release does not pass muster. To tease out the true intent South had when he signed the release, it is necessary to consider the context in which he did so. The 1997 complaint, while making generalized allegations that South had been exposed to asbestos, is exceedingly vague as to whether he had actually contracted an asbestos-related disease. To be sure, it mentions a “devastating pulmonary disease Plaintiff now suffers” and an exhaustive grab-bag of asbestos-related diseases, from asbestosis to mesothelioma to brain cancer. However, it is impossible to conclude from the complaint that South had actually received a diagnosis. Indeed, the “meager” consideration he received for resolving the claim suggests that he had not been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, much less one even approaching the severity of the mesothelioma that the complaint specifically alleges he had. The complaint leaves open that possibility, to the extent it seeks relief for fear of an asbestos-related disease and not for the disease itself. Accordingly, the risk of contracting an actual asbestos-related disease remained hypothetical to South, and we decline to read the release as if South understood the implications of such a disease but chose nonetheless to release Texaco from claims arising from it.

Further, if South had not received a definitive diagnosis at the time the 1997 complaint was filed, then the release, to the extent it warns him of the possibility of “a new and different diagnosis from the diagnosis as of the date of this Release,” does not reflect the actual circumstances known to him, since the words “new” and “different” suggest that South had already been diagnosed with a disease when he executed the release. Rather, the lack of an actual diagnosis reveals the language in the release as mere boilerplate, and not the result of an agreement the parameters of which had been specifically negotiated and understood by South. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 06343  First Dept 8-29-17

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/MESOPTHEMIOLA (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN POST-COLONOSCOPY INSTRUCTIONS AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF A COLON PERFORATION CONSTITUTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant doctor’s (Aronoff’s) motion to set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. Aronoff’s failure to provide plaintiff (Raymond) with written instructions and warning after the colonoscopy, and his failure to notify plaintiff after a colon perforation was discovered constituted sufficient evidence of proximate cause:

Establishing proximate cause in medical malpractice cases requires a plaintiff to present sufficient medical evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the defendant’s departure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury … . “Generally, expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause” … . ” A plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased the injury, as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased [the] injury'” … .

Here, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that Aronoff departed from accepted standards of medical practice in failing to provide Raymond with written post-colonoscopy instructions and failing to warn him as to the signs or symptoms of which he should be aware. Aronoff also failed to contact Raymond and instruct him to go to the hospital after Aro

noff had reviewed CT scan results that revealed a colon perforation. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s findings that these deviations proximately caused Raymond’s injuries … . Gaspard v Aronoff, 2017 NY Slip Op 06258, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

,

NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the landlord’s (NYC Housing Authority’s, NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiff was shot by an unknown assailant in the hallway of his apartment building. Plaintiff alleged the assailant gained access to the building by virtue of a broken lock:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person”… . Recovery against a landlord for an assault committed by a third party requires a showing that the landlord’s negligent failure to provide adequate security was a proximate cause of the injury … . “In premises security cases particularly, the necessary causal link between a landlord’s culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant’s injuries resulting from a criminal attack in the building can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant, or someone allowed into the building by another tenant, plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” … .

Here, NYCHA met its prima facie burden by submitting evidence that the rear door lock was operable and not broken on the day of the incident, and, in any event, by demonstrating that the assailant’s identity remains unknown and that it could not be established that the assailant was an intruder … . In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “Mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” … . Martinez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06263, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (ASSAULT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dentist who provided an affidavit for plaintiff was an expert, the expert raised a question of fact whether defendant departed from the accepted standard of care, and a question of fact was raised about whether plaintiff gave informed consent to the procedure. The court noted that plaintiff’s expert’s qualifications were not questioned in defendant’s reply papers. Therefore, the court should not have raised the issue on its own and used the issue to support granting  summary judgment to the defendant. With regard to informed consent, the court wrote:

“A cause of action predicated on a lack of informed consent is meant to redress a failure of the person providing the professional treatment or diagnosis to disclose to the patient such alternatives thereto and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved as a reasonable medical . . . practitioner under similar circumstances would have disclosed, in a manner permitting the patient to make a knowledgeable evaluation”… .. To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a 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 … .

Here, the defendant failed to submit proof sufficient to establish, prima facie, that he had informed the plaintiff of the reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and, in any event, that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed … . Dyckes v Stabile, 2017 NY Slip Op 06252, Second Dept 8-23-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION  (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ISSUES NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT  (ISSUES NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the state’s motion for summary judgment in this personal injury action was properly granted. Claimant alleged he suffered a head injury when diving into waves at a state park beach. Apparently claimant’s head hit the ocean floor:

Governmental entities owe a duty to ” act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining [their] property in a reasonably safe condition'” … . “The duty goes beyond the mere maintenance of the physical condition of the park” … , as there is also a “recognized duty of general supervision” … . The degree of general supervision must be “adequate” … .

Here, in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it furnished a sufficient number of lifeguards, that those lifeguards were experienced and competent, and that they reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure … . Furthermore, the defendant had no duty to warn swimmers of threats arising from the existence of natural, transitory conditions of the ocean floor … . Courtney v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06250, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SWIMMERS, STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT))/COURT OF CLAIMS (STATE BEACHES, SWIMMERS, STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT))/SWIMMERS (STATE BEACHES, STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT))/STATE PARKS  (STATE BEACHES, STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT))

INSUFFICIENT WEIGHT BEARING CAPACITY OF SHEETROCK FORMING THE ATTIC FLOOR WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department. reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowners’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff, who was hired to clean defendants’ attic, was injured when she stepped on sheetrock and fell through:

Landowners have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition … ‘ However, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous … . “While the issue of whether a hazard is . . . open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus a jury question, a court may determine that a risk was open and obvious as a matter of law when the established facts compel that conclusion, and may do so on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence” … .

Here, the homeowners failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment a matter of law, as they failed to establish that the insufficient weight-bearing capacity of the sheetrock ceiling was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law … . Gallardo v Gilbert, 2017 NY Slip Op 06256, Second Dept 8-23-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (INSUFFICIENT WEIGHT BEARING CAPACITY OF SHEETROCK FORMING THE ATTIC FLOOR WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (NEGLIGENCE, INSUFFICIENT WEIGHT BEARING CAPACITY OF SHEETROCK FORMING THE ATTIC FLOOR WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT))

SNOW AND ICE ON FRONT STEPS WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant homeowners’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice and snow which was on defendants’ front steps. The defendants demonstrated the storm in progress rule applied and the condition was open and obvious:

… [T]he defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including climatological data, demonstrating that they did not have a reasonable opportunity to remedy the condition under the storm in progress rule … . Similarly, the defendants did not have a duty to warn the plaintiff of the open and obvious condition on the front step … . De Chica v Saldana, 2017 NY Slip Op 06251, Second Dept 8-23-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW AND ICE ON FRONT STEPS WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW AND ICE ON FRONT STEPS WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW AND ICE ON FRONT STEPS WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, NO DUTY TO WARN (SECOND DEPT))/WARN, DUTY TO (SLIP AND FALL, SNOW AND ICE ON FRONT STEPS WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, NO DUTY TO WARN (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