You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion to renew the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim was erroneously deemed a motion to reargue (by Supreme Court) and was erroneously denied. Leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. The wrongful death action was brought on behalf of a county worker who was killed when he fell off the back of a dump truck after the truck allegedly struck a bump in the road. The Second Department noted: (1) the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim runs from the appointment of the administrator of decedent’s estate; (2) the motion presented new evidence which was not previously available and was therefore a motion to renew, not reargue; (3) the county had notice of the facts of the action within the 90-day period; (4) the county did not demonstrate prejudice related to the delay in filing the notice of claim (even though the road defect had been repaired):

The County acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim before a representative of the estate was appointed. The [police department] conducted an investigation, took photographs of, inter alia, the subject roadway condition, obtained a statement from the driver of the truck, and prepared a case report that detailed the nature and the alleged cause of the accident. In addition, … Inasmuch as the County acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim and actually conducted an investigation, the petitioner made an initial showing that the County was not prejudiced by his delay in serving a notice of claim … . The County claims that it will nonetheless be prejudiced by the delay because the roadway where the accident occurred has been repaved and because it will be unable to locate witnesses. The County, however, had recognized the need for repairs of the roadway before the petitioner was appointed as administrator, and it issued work orders to repair the roadway only a few days after the petitioner was appointed. Thus, any prejudice resulting from the changed condition of the road was not caused by the petitioner’s delay in serving a notice of claim … . In any event, the County took photographs of the defect and inspected the location after the accident … . The County also failed to make a showing that any of the witnesses are unavailable. Thus, the County failed to respond to the petitioner’s initial showing as to lack of prejudice with a particularized showing that the petitioner’s delay in serving a notice of claim will prejudice it in its defense on the merits … . Matter of Kerner v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 04277, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO RENEW PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SLIP AND FALL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged sidewalk defect in this slip and fall case was trivial and not actionable as a matter of law:

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defect in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall was trivial, and that there were no surrounding circumstances that magnified the dangers it posed … . Defendant submitted photographs and measurements, which showed that the height differential between the expansion joint and the sidewalk flags was less than half an inch. The photographs did not depict any jagged edges or any rough, irregular surface, and the expansion joint was not difficult to see or pass over safely on foot, given plaintiff’s testimony that the accident occurred on a sunny day and she was the only person traversing the pathway. Plaintiff’s testimony that the defect was two-to-four inches high was speculative, since she did not measure the defect … . McCullough v Riverbay Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04231, 1st Dept 5-30-17

NEGLIGENCE (SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL, TRIVIAL DEFECT, SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SLIP AND FALL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, TRIVIAL DEFECT, SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SLIP AND FALL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, TRIVIAL DEFECT, SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SLIP AND FALL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s action against the city in this slip and fall case was properly dismissed. Plaintiff did not allege the city had prior written notice of the sign post stump in the sidewalk, and the 15-day grace period for the notice which the city did receive had not expired at the time of plaintiff’s fall:

Plaintiff alleges that, as she was exiting a bus, she tripped and fell over the stump of a pole sign protruding about three to four inches from the sidewalk near the bus stop. The City met its prima facie burden by showing that plaintiff did not plead that the City received prior written notice of the sidewalk defect as required by Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201(c)(2) … .

The City also submitted evidence showing the absence of prior written notice; that the sign was in good condition two years before the accident; that the City received a citizen complaint through 311 less than 15 days before plaintiff’s accident; and that it repaired the condition a few days after her accident. The complaint received before the accident, even if it were in writing, could not constitute prior written notice for purposes of the statute, since it was received within the 15-day grace period provided by the statute for the City to make repairs after receiving notice … .

… Plaintiff failed to demonstrate either that she pled prior written notice or that the 311 complaint received by the City within the 15-day grace period constitutes such notice. Plaintiff’s contention that the City affirmatively created the condition by removing the sign from the sleeve is unsupported by any evidence. Brown v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04221, 1st Dept 5-30-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE)/SIDEWALKS (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE)/WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE)

,

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER.

The Third Department determined defendant school district was entitled to summary judgment in this sports injury case. Plaintiff (Legac) was struck in the face by a baseball during tryouts held in the gymnasium (due to weather). The Third Department held that the school district demonstrated plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury. He was an experienced baseball player and was aware of the way the baseball was being hit by the coach and the way the baseball reacted when striking the gymnasium floor:

​

While Legac testified that he believed that Potter was hitting the ball “too hard” and that the baseball traveled faster on the gymnasium floor than it would have on a baseball field, such conditions were open and obvious and clearly appreciated by Legac, who had the opportunity to watch the players ahead of him complete the ground ball fielding drill and had observed the ball interact with the flooring over three days of indoor tryouts … . Inasmuch as the conditions inherent in the indoor ground ball fielding drill were readily apparent to Legac and the risk of being struck by a ball was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of engaging in that drill, we find that defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . Legac v South Glens Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 04182, 3rd Dept 5-25-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SPORTS, PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER)/BASEBALL (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SPORTS, PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER)

, ,

BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT AN ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE.

The Third Department, in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud (among other causes of action) stemming from the underfunding of a Workers’ Compensation benefits trust fund, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice. The lawyer, Gosdeck, argued that the complaint failed to allege his actions were the sole proximate cause of the injury. The Third Department reasoned that the “but for” test for legal malpractice was not the same as “sole proximate cause:”

​

… [W]e reject Gosdeck’s argument that plaintiff was required to allege that he was the sole proximate cause of alleged damages. Rather, “[i]n an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages”… . “An attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if but for the attorney’s negligence the plaintiff . . . would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages”… . We agree with Supreme Court that, on this motion to dismiss a claim of legal malpractice that is based on negligent legal advice given over a period of time, the “but for” standard is not synonymous with sole proximate cause and that plaintiff’s burden is to prove that Gosdeck’s negligence was a proximate cause of damages … . New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Program Risk Mgt., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04184, 3rd Dept 5-25-17

ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT AN ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT AN ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (LEGAL MALPRACTICE RE MANAGEMENT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT AN ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT AN ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE

,

CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined the last occupant of a campsite (Reinoso), as well as the county which owned the campgrounds, were not entitled to summary judgment in and action brought by an eight-year-old boy who was burned when he stepped into a pit of hot coals:

​

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Reinoso was the party who left the hot embers on the ground … .

Further, it has long been the rule in New York that “[l]andowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property” … . “In particular, they have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control”… . Here, the evidence submitted by the County defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether they exercised “ordinary and reasonable care in maintaining the campgrounds in a reasonably safe condition so as to prevent foreseeable injury” … . Holohan v County of Suffolk, 2017 NY Slip Op 04104, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY-OWNED CAMPGROUNDS, CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CAMPGROUNDS (CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff slipped on a wet area of a carpeted stairwell. Defendants’ evidence of general cleaning practices was not enough to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

​

Among other things, deposition testimony submitted by the defendants demonstrated that, although the building superintendent and property manager inspected the building on a regular basis, there was no specific schedule for the inspections and there were no records of inspections. Further, there was no cleaning schedule for the stairways and, if someone made a complaint about a dangerous condition on a stairway, the superintendent would not write that down. “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Perez v Wendell Terrace Owners Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 04156, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

NEGLIGENCE (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in this traffic accident case and plaintiff had raised questions of fact whether he suffered serious physical and psychological injury within the meaning of the no-fault law.  Plaintiff alleged defendant’s car struck his after crossing the double yellow line and defendant had pled guilty to crossing the double yellow line. The dissent argued plaintiff did not demonstrate psychological injury and did not meet the 90/180 day no-fault criteria:

​

This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff … , raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s alleged neck, back and left shoulder injuries constitute a serious injury under the significant limitation of use category  … . …

​

As for plaintiff’s alleged psychological injuries, “[i]t has been established ‘that a causally-related emotional injury, alone or in combination with a physical injury, can constitute a serious injury'” … .  * * *

​

… [P]laintiff proffered the affirmed narrative report of Barry Goldman, his primary care physician. Goldman stated that plaintiff visited his primary care practice more than a dozen times between August 2014 and November 2015 — three of which predated the second motor vehicle accident in September 2014 — for treatment relating to anxiety, stress, insomnia, nightmares, irritability, temperament changes and reliving and experiencing flashbacks of the June 2014 accident. Based on his review of the medical records generated from these visits, as well as his own examinations of plaintiff, Goldman concluded that plaintiff’s diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder was causally related to the June 2014 motor vehicle accident. He stated that, although the death of plaintiff’s wife and the second motor vehicle accident “may have added to his symptoms, the trauma of his first accident was the cause and directly related to his complaints.” This evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the June 2014 motor vehicle accident caused plaintiff to suffer psychological injuries constituting a significant limitation of use of a body function or system … .  Fillette v Lundberg, 2017 NY Slip Op 04180, 3rd Dept 5-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, NO-FAULT,PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY (NO-FAULT, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/SERIOUS INJURY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NO-FAULT, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HIS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES MET THE NO-FAULT CRITERIA FOR SERIOUS INJURY)

DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store was not entitled to summary judgment in this tracked-in-water slip and fall case. The slip and fall was in the “card isle” of the store, not at the entrance. The court explained that proof of general cleaning practices, as opposed to when the area was last cleaned or inspected, will not support summary judgment:

​

While a defendant is not required to cover all of its floors with mats, or to continuously mop up all moisture resulting from tracked-in rain … , a defendant may be held liable for an injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition created by water, snow, or ice tracked into a building if it either created the hazardous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to undertake remedial action … . …

​

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, including transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and of the manager of the store at the time of the accident, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. The store manager stated that the store, which was open 24 hours a day, did not have set times when inspections were conducted, and that he did not know the last time that the card aisle had been inspected prior to the incident or what it looked like within a reasonable time prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall was not visible and apparent and that it had not been there for a sufficient period of time for the defendants to have discovered and remedied it … . Hickson v Walgreen Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04103, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)/WATER, TRACKED IN (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE)

,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have granted leave to file a late notice of claim. “Petitioner was injured on July 15, 2015, while working as a bricklayer … at a job site located at an intermediate school in the Bronx. Petitioner alleges that while lifting 60 to 70 pound buckets, he tripped and fell due to an uneven floor on a makeshift scaffold. He filed a workers’ compensation claim on July 29, 2015, but did not file a notice of claim until July 15, 2016, a year later. In the intervening year, he underwent a shoulder and a hip surgery:”

​

The motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion. Petitioner failed to establish any of the relevant statutory factors that would warrant leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Petitioner’s alleged failure to realize the severity of his injuries within 90 days after his accident did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim, especially since petitioner filed a workers’ compensation claim just weeks after the accident… . Nor did petitioner show that respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the statutory period, or a reasonable time thereafter (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). There is no evidence that respondents received petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim form, which, in any event, makes no mention of the allegations against respondents … . Absent any knowledge of even a potential Labor Law claim, respondents certainly had no basis to conduct their own investigations … .

* * * … [T]here is no evidence respondents were aware of an accident even occurring. Petitioner … does no more than refer to numerous construction records that purportedly could be examined, yet provides no names of actual witnesses nor any reference to specific information in those records. Matter of Grajko v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04203, 1st Dept 5-24-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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