You are here: / Negligence
,

NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the document submitted by plaintiff was a supplemental bill of particulars, not an amended bill of particulars. Therefore the document could be served without permission from the court:

​

In his original bill of particulars dated February 8, 2006, the injured plaintiff alleged that he sustained permanent personal injuries, including depression, insomnia, agitation, poor concentration, loneliness, and tenseness, and that his injuries were accompanied by distress, depression, stress, and psychological difficulties. After the Supreme Court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed on appeal … and the case was restored to the trial calendar, the plaintiffs served, pursuant to CPLR 3101(d), an expert witness disclosure dated August 4, 2013, and the affidavit of their expert psychologist dated April 27, 2013. Thereafter, the plaintiffs served a supplemental bill of particulars dated February 17, 2015, alleging the additional injuries or damages of post-traumatic stress disorder and future costs of long-term psychotherapy. In the order appealed from, the court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to strike the supplemental bill of particulars and denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to compel the defendant to accept the supplemental bill of particulars. The court found that the supplemental bill of particulars sought to add new injuries, thereby rendering it an amended bill of particulars, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the inordinate delay in seeking leave to include the new injuries. The plaintiffs appeal.

Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), a plaintiff in a personal injury action may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing “continuing special damages and disabilities,” without leave of the court at any time, but not less than 30 days prior to trial, if it alleges “no new cause of action” or claims no “new injury.” Here, the plaintiffs sought to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in the original bill of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries … . Since the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars, and was served more than 30 days prior to trial, leave of court was not required … . Khosrova v Hampton Bays Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05075, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BILL OF PARTICULARS, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (SUPPLEMENTAL VERSUS AMENDED, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)

, ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s verdict against the transit authority in this slip and fall case should not have been set aside. Plaintiff regularly used the unlighted subway stairway when he returned from work without incident. The jury, therefore, could reasonably have found plaintiff’s use of the unlighted stairway was not negligent:

​

In this action for personal injuries, plaintiff alleges that he fell while descending a covered and unlit exterior subway staircase owned by defendant. The jury found that defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the lighting on the staircase, that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries’, and that plaintiff was not negligent.

The trial court erred in setting aside as against the weight of the evidence the jury’s finding that plaintiff was not negligent … . Although plaintiff conceded that he descended an unlighted staircase, the jury could reasonably have concluded that his decision to do so was not negligent, as plaintiff testified that he used the same staircase every night while coming home from work, and had in fact done so without incident on previous evenings when the lights were inoperative. Sanchez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 04899, 1st Dept 6-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE,  THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

, ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s verdict against the transit authority in this slip and fall case should not have been set aside. Plaintiff regularly used the unlighted subway stairway when he returned from work without incident. The jury, therefore, could reasonably have found plaintiff’s use of the unlighted stairway was not negligent:

​

In this action for personal injuries, plaintiff alleges that he fell while descending a covered and unlit exterior subway staircase owned by defendant. The jury found that defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the lighting on the staircase, that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries’, and that plaintiff was not negligent.

The trial court erred in setting aside as against the weight of the evidence the jury’s finding that plaintiff was not negligent … . Although plaintiff conceded that he descended an unlighted staircase, the jury could reasonably have concluded that his decision to do so was not negligent, as plaintiff testified that he used the same staircase every night while coming home from work, and had in fact done so without incident on previous evenings when the lights were inoperative. Sanchez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 04899, 1st Dept 6-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE,  THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action brought on behalf of a high school student who committed suicide was properly dismissed. The decision lays out in detail the actions of the defendants and the expert affidavits submitted to demonstrate the defendants did not deviate from an appropriate standard of care in assessing plaintiff’s decedent’s mental state or in releasing plaintiff’s decedent to his parents. The plaintiffs’ expert affidavit did not demonstrate any substantive deviation from appropriate care, or any expertise in emergency medicine. Shortly after release from defendants’ care, which related to drug abuse, not suicidal ideation, plaintiff’s decedent shot himself in the head:

The burden … shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants departed from the accepted standard of care … . To that end, plaintiffs primarily relied on an affirmation of Igor Galynker, a psychiatrist, who opined that Duplan [the psychiatrist] departed from accepted practice in several ways, including by failing to personally evaluate decedent and failing to consider several factors that increased decedent’s risk for suicide. As to CMC [the emergency care provider], Galynker opined that it failed to establish procedures requiring Duplan to personally evaluate decedent and failed to create a “structured interview algorithm” for assessment of acute suicide risk, leading to serious errors on Beeby’s [the psychiatric nurse who interviewed plaintiff’s decedent] part. Yet, Galynker failed to provide any factual basis for his opinions … or point to any medical guidelines indicating that only a psychiatrist may conduct a mental health examination. Furthermore, Galynker’s assertion that Duplan had failed to consider several additional suicide risk factors is belied by Duplan’s testimony and the mental health evaluation, which reveal that Duplan was aware of and weighed such factors. Relatedly, Galynker never articulated how or why, if certain questions were asked or mnemonics/algorithms were used, material information would have been revealed that would have altered the medical decision rendered. Consequently, with regard to Duplan and CMC, Supreme Court properly found Galynker’s affirmation to be conclusory and lacking sufficient detail to raise a triable issue of fact … . With respect to Koch [the emergency medicine physician], Galynker opined that he deviated from accepted practice by, among other things, failing to discuss the case with Duplan and failing to consider the effects of decedent’s drug use. Notably, however, Galynker did not indicate that he had any training or expertise in the field of emergency medicine … . Therefore, plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action were properly dismissed. Gallagher v Cayuga Med. Ctr. 2017 NY Slip Op 04941, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SUICIDE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SUICIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)

, ,

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion by Justice Andrias, determined plaintiff’s expert affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact whether the school nurse’s failure to tell plaintiff to remove a contraceptive device (NuvaRing) was a proximate cause of blood clots which resulted in severe brain damage. The dissent argued plaintiff’s expert affidavit was conclusory and speculative, insufficient to defeat defendant’s expert’s opinion that removing the NuvaRing would not have prevented the blood clots which occurred seven days after plaintiff complained to the nurse practitioner about chest pains:

​

Montefiore [the defendant which employed the nurse practitioner at the school clinic] made a prima facie case through its expert, Dr. Bardack, that it was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, plaintiff’s expert raised an issue of fact concerning causation. We disagree with the dissent that the affidavit of Dr. Gold was speculative and conclusory. Dr. Gold specifically opined that if the nurse practitioner had properly assessed plaintiff, instructed her to remove the NuvaRing, and referred her for further assessment, plaintiff’s subsequent injuries and complications would have been avoided. Had the nurse properly assessed plaintiff as suffering from the symptoms of a blood clot, she could have instructed plaintiff to remove the ring immediately, thereby at least beginning to correct any clotting imbalance. As Montefiore’s expert acknowledges, “clot risk is gradually decreased after the ring is removed.” Thus, while the nurse was not in a position to treat clots, she certainly was in a position to make the diagnosis and to direct the plaintiff to remove the likely source of her symptoms, lessening the risk of an adverse outcome.

Montefiore asserts that even if the NuvaRing had been removed on June 1, thromboembolism was nonetheless likely to ensue, relying on FDA guidelines concerning presurgical protocols; Dr. Gold, however, opined that the risk of blood clotting would have subsided had the ring been removed. At this stage, plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit suffices to raise a factual issue as to the element of causation.

It may well be that the medical professionals who subsequently treated plaintiff are also at fault for failing to work her up for thromboembolism and failing to remove or direct her to remove the NuvaRing. Issues of relative culpability await resolution at trial. Plaintiff’s submissions raise an issue of fact as to the liability of the nurse practitioner sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Adams v Pilarte, 2017 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT OPINION, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/NUVARING (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)

, ,

OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD.

The Third Department determined claimant’s negligence suit against the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) was properly dismissed because the OMRDD’s oversight of private companies providing care to the developmentally disabled was a government function and there was no special relationship with the resident, claimant’s daughter. Therefore the state was immune from suti. Claimant alleged the resident was abused while in the care of Camary Statewide Services, a private, nonprofit corporation that was, at that time, certified by the OMRDD:

​

OMRDD conducted annual or biannual reviews, which included a sampling of records and interviews of staff members and residents, to determine whether Camary continued to be eligible for an operating certificate to provide care and treatment to developmentally disabled individuals … . Where noncompliance was discovered, OMRDD could require private service providers to take corrective measures to address the deficiency or, where the noncompliance was severe, revoke, suspend or limit the service provider’s operating certificate … . In the event of noncompliance, OMRDD would provide guidance to the service provider, but it would not take affirmative steps to bring the provider into compliance with the applicable regulations. Moreover, OMRDD’s oversight over, and regulation of, Camary was plainly undertaken to further the general goal of protecting the health and safety of persons with developmental disabilities. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the actions, or inactions, in question were governmental in nature … . * * *

​

… [C]laimant argues that the requisite special relationship was formed by OMRDD’s violation of Mental Hygiene Law former § 13.07 (c) … , as well as the reporting rules in 14 NYCRR former part 624 … . As relevant here, Mental Hygiene Law former § 13.07 (c) …  charged OMRDD with ensuring that the care and treatment provided to persons with developmental disabilities were of high quality and that the personal and civil rights of persons receiving such care and treatment were protected. As for the reporting rules, OMRDD promulgated detailed regulations requiring that reportable incidents, which included instances in which a resident sustained an injury requiring more than first aid, be recorded and investigated by the service provider under a defined procedure, subject to review by OMRDD. Undoubtedly, these statutory and regulatory provisions were enacted for the benefit of persons with developmental disabilities, a class within which the resident certainly falls.

However, no private right of action is expressly created by the implementing statute and the relevant regulations and, contrary to claimant’s contentions, one may not be fairly implied. T.T. v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04940, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/IMMUNITY (OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (IMMUNITY, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, IMMUNITY,  OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY,  OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)

,

CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city did not demonstrate it did not have notice of the pothole which caused plaintiff to slip and fall, and the abutting property owner did not demonstrate it did not have a special use of the area. Therefore neither the city’s nor the property owner’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

​

The City failed to establish, prima facie, the absence of a written acknowledgment of the alleged dangerous condition. Documents produced by the City’s Department of Transportation demonstrated that the City acknowledged in writing that a pothole existed in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s accident … . Any dispute as to the precise location of the noticed pothole is a question of fact for the jury … . …

Likewise, the owner failed to meet her prima facie burden. Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or street “is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner”… . However, liability may be imposed on an abutting property owner where, inter alia, the owner of the abutting property caused the condition to occur through a special use of that area… . Here, the owner failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that she did not cause the alleged condition to occur because of some special use. The record establishes that the area where the plaintiff was injured was at the dead-end of Atkins Avenue, which was bordered on each side by Arlington Village apartment buildings. Indeed, part of Atkins Avenue is used for a parking lot solely for the benefit of Arlington Village tenants. The parking lot is partitioned from Atkins Avenue by chain link fencing and a gate maintained by the owner. The garbage dumpsters maintained for use by the tenants of Arlington Village are kept in the parking lot. There are no sidewalks in the dead-end area of Atkins Avenue. Accordingly, the roadway was used by tenants and employees of Arlington Village as a walkway, as a driveway for their vehicles, and as a driveway and walkway to access the adjacent parking lot and the garbage dumpsters. Thus, the owner failed to establish, prima facie, that she did not derive a special use from the area which contained the defect. Furthermore, “[w]hether an entity is liable for creating a defect as a special user is generally a question for the jury” … . Llanos v Stark, 2017 NY Slip Op 04828, 2nd Dept 6-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, SPECIAL USE, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW,  CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SPECIAL USE (SLIP AND FALL, PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the water where plaintiff slipped and fell. Proof of general cleaning practices is not enough:

​

The defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they lacked notice of the alleged water on the stairs so as to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . A defendant has constructive notice of a dangerous condition when the condition has been visible and apparent long enough for the defendant to have discovered and remedied it … .

Here, the defendants did not submit any evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed. Rather, they merely provided evidence regarding the general cleaning practices and inspection procedures employed by the building superintendent, which is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice … . Further, the defendants’ contention that the “water could have been deposited there only minutes or seconds before the alleged fall” is pure speculation, and the defendants cannot satisfy their initial burden on summary judgment merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case … . Lebron v 142 S 9, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04827, 2nd Dept 6-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED)/GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES (SLIP AND FALL, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, (PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED)

SMALL DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING STONES ON THE PARKING LOT WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS, SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined small decorative stones (used for landscaping), two or three of which were on the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell, constituted an open and obvious condition which was not actionable:

​

The [defendant] Olive Garden used small decorative stones outside as part of its landscaping, and the plaintiff alleged that two or three of the stones were in the parking lot. After exiting the Olive Garden at approximately 1:00 p.m. on June 17, 2008, the plaintiff walked to the parking lot toward her car, but fell before reaching it. She alleged that her fall resulted from stepping on one of the Olive Garden’s stones.

The Olive Garden made a prima facie showing that the complained-of condition was both open and obvious, i.e., readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and not inherently dangerous … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Lawrence v Darden Rests., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04826, 2nd Dept 6-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SMALL DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING STONES ON THE PARKING LOT WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS, SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (SMALL DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING STONES ON THE PARKING LOT WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS, SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, SMALL DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING STONES ON THE PARKING LOT WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS, SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)

PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON.

The Second Department determined defendant did not raise a question of fact in this rear-end collision case. Although defendant (Alvarez) claimed Cristea’s) car stopped suddenly for no apparent reason, defendant acknowledged Cristea’s car was stopped at the time of the collision and defendant did not see the car until the collision. Plaintiffs, who were passengers in defendant Alvarez’s car, entitled to summary judgment:

​

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . While a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision may include evidence of a sudden stop of the lead vehicle, vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her vehicle and the vehicle ahead … .

Here, Cristea established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Cristea submitted the deposition testimony of the parties, which demonstrated that Cristea’s vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by Alvarez’s vehicle. Although Alvarez testified that Cristea’s vehicle braked suddenly, he admitted that Cristea’s vehicle was stopped at the time of impact, and that he did not see Cristea’s vehicle until he hit it. Under these circumstances, Alvarez’s claim that Cristea’s vehicle braked suddenly did not raise a triable issue fact as to whether any negligence on the part of Cristea contributed to the accident … . Gonzalez v Alvarez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04819, 2nd Dept 6-14-1

 

NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IS DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IS DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS, PASSENGERS IS DEFENDANT’S CAR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT THE CAR AHEAD STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO REASON)

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