You are here: / Negligence

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendants’ failed to demonstrate they did not have actual or constructive notice of or create the icy condition:

​

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that six or more inches of snow fell the day before the accident, and that the area of the gas station where she fell looked as if it had been plowed. The defendants provided only general information about their snow and ice removal practices, and no evidence was submitted, inter alia, as to when it last snowed prior to the time of the accident, what they actually did to remove snow and ice from the premises prior to the accident, when they last inspected the accident site prior to the accident, or what the accident site looked like within a reasonable time prior to the accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … .  D’Esposito v Manetto Hill Auto Serv., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03729, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)

PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER FALL, CODE VIOLATIONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE FALL, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted because plaintiff could not describe the cause of the fall. The expert affidavit citing code violations did not connect the violations to the fall:

​

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that she could not identify the cause of her fall … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit from an engineer who asserted that the stairs violated several provisions of the “New York State Building Construction Code,” the plaintiff presented no evidence connecting these alleged violations to her fall. Thus, even assuming that an applicable code provision was violated, it would be speculative to assume that any such violation was a proximate cause of the accident … . Amster v Kromer, 2017 NY Slip Op 03720, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER FALL, CODE VIOLATIONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE FALL, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER FALL, CODE VIOLATIONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE FALL, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the notice of claim was properly granted in this bicycle accident case. The notice of claim stated plaintiff was “lawfully traveling” on a service road when injured by a defect in the road. The amendment sought to indicate plaintiff was riding a bicycle at the time he was injured:

​

A court may, in its discretion, grant an application for leave to serve an amended notice of claim if the mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect in the original notice was made in good faith, and the municipality has not been prejudiced … . In making a determination as to whether the municipality has been prejudiced, the court may consider the evidence adduced at a hearing conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, as well as any other evidence that is properly before the court … .

Here, the record does not show any bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, and the County failed to show that it would be prejudiced by the amendment. In particular, the County does not allege that the condition of the roadway changed prior to the service of the summons and complaint, which alleged that the plaintiff was injured while bicycling. Moreover, the record shows that Nassau County Police Department EMS personnel responded to the scene of the accident, and EMS personnel prepared a written report indicating that the plaintiff fell from a bicycle. Fast v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 03734, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the negligent supervision action against the school district, stemming from an assault by a student against the infant plaintiff (another student), properly survived summary judgment. The Second Department noted that the school, as opposed to the school district, is not an entity which can be sued. The decision includes a concise but complete explanation of the relevant law. Here the district was aware the infant plaintiff had been harassed by the student before and the student punched the infant plaintiff while a teacher was present in a classroom. The punch was immediately preceded by a couple of minutes of harassment of the infant plaintiff by the assailant:

​

… [T]he School District has not shown, prima facie, that the incident “involved the type of unforeseeable, spontaneous acts of violence for which school districts cannot be held liable” … , or that the teacher had no time to prevent the infant plaintiff’s injuries and, therefore, the alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . Moreover, the School District did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff voluntarily entered into a fight with the classmate; rather, the infant plaintiff’s testimony demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether he acted in self-defense … . Because the School District did not meet its prima facie burden, we do not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers … . Guerriero v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 03736, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF)/ASSAULT (STUDENT ON STUDENT, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF)

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this personal injury case was properly granted. The jury found defendant negligent but went on to find the negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury:

​

… [T]he plaintiff … was injured when an ammunition reloading device, owned by the defendant, exploded as the plaintiff attempted to remove what was purportedly a “dead” cartridge from the device. The defendant had inadvertently jammed a live round in the device two months earlier and had attempted to remove the combustible components before bringing it to the plaintiff and seeking his assistance in removing the jammed cartridge. * * *

… [T]here existed no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could rationally have found that the defendant’s negligent conduct was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Piro v Demeglio, 2017 NY Slip Op 03785, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT WENT ON TO FIND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this lead paint poisoning case should not have been granted:

“In order [t]o establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition’ ” … . Where, as here, there is no evidence that the landlord had actual notice, plaintiffs may establish that the landlord had constructive notice of such condition by demonstrating that the landlord “(1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … .  Here, it is undisputed that decedent retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs, but the remaining … factors are in dispute.

By submitting the deposition testimony of plaintiffs’ mother, wherein she testified that she told [defendant] that she would be living at the residence with her young children, [defendants] raised a triable issue of fact on the fifth … factor. Similarly, [defendant’s] own deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact on the second … factor inasmuch as he testified that the subject residence was old, that lead was taken out of gasoline in 1970, and he “must have known” that laws regarding lead started to come out in the 1970s ,,, . Even assuming, arguendo, that [defendants] met their initial burden on the third and fourth … factors, we conclude that plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact by submitting ” evidence from which it may be inferred that [defendant] knew that paint was peeling on the premises’ . . . , and evidence from which a jury could infer that [defendant] knew or should have known of the dangers of lead paint to children’ ” … . Rodrigues v Lesser, 2017 NY Slip Op 03669, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined defendant orthopedic surgeon’s (McGrath’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/wrongful death case should have been granted. Defendant’s detailed affidavit established he did not deviate from the applicable standard of care and plaintiff’s expert, an anesthesiologist, did not raise a question of fact:

McGrath met his burden by submitting a detailed affirmation establishing that his care and treatment of decedent in recommending and performing surgery was consistent with the accepted standard of care … . The burden then shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact by submitting a physician’s affidavit establishing both a departure from the accepted standard of care and proximate cause … . Plaintiff failed to meet that burden inasmuch as he submitted the affirmation of an anesthesiologist who failed to establish how he was familiar with the accepted standard of care for an orthopedic surgeon. Although a medical expert need not be a specialist in a field to offer an opinion concerning the accepted standards of care in that field, a physician offering an opinion outside his or her particular field must lay a foundation to support the reliability of that opinion … . Chillis v Brundin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03646, 4th Dept 5-5-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EXPERT OPINION  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF CARE FOR AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, THE SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release referred only to claims arising from injuries suffered by defendant, and not injuries suffered by another:

In March 2013, third-party defendant John Salewski, while operating a tractor trailer owned by his employer and third-party defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc., was involved in a collision with a tractor trailer operated by defendant. Plaintiff is Salewski’s wife and was a passenger in the vehicle operated by Salewski at the time of the accident. Defendant commenced a personal injury action against Salewski and Werner for damages allegedly sustained in that accident. That action was settled in June 2014, and, in connection therewith, defendant executed a general release in favor of Salewski and Werner. In April 2015, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant for damages that she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. Defendant answered and thereafter commenced a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Salewski and Werner. Instead of answering, Salewski and Werner moved to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground of release. Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that the plain language of the release barred the third-party action. * * *

Here, the release clearly defines the incident, the claim and the lawsuit. The fact that there are multiple references to the term “injuries” indicates an unambiguous intention to limit the release’s application only to the personal injuries suffered by defendant in the incident. We further find this language to be a clear and unambiguous expression of the parties’ intention that the release applies only to claims related to defendant’s injuries. As such, and giving full meaning and effect to its material provisions, the release plainly manifests an intent to release Salewski and Werner for any and all claims related to defendant’s personal injuries, and not to claims for contribution and indemnification for injuries allegedly suffered by another party — here, plaintiff … . Salewski v Music, 2017 NY Slip Op 03582, 3rd Dept 5-5-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/NEGLIGENCE (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)/RELEASES (RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER)

, ,

STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS.

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a state trooper, defendant Begeal, was entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case because he was immune from suit for his actions, which were discretionary. Plaintiff physician assistant was injured by a patient (Lacey) brought into the hospital by law enforcement officers, including Begeal. Plaintiff was kicked by the patient and alleged Begeal negligently failed to restrain the patient’s legs:

Although Begeal had access to plastic leg restraints, the undisputed evidence established that, at the time that he left the examination room, Lacey was still handcuffed, was “extremely calm” and had allowed a nurse to remove pieces of glass from his feet without kicking or otherwise resisting the nurse’s efforts. Begeal thus made a “reasoned judgment” not to utilize the leg restraints … . Accordingly, “[t]he decision to employ [only handcuffs] was a discretionary one . . ., and [Begeal] may not be held liable for that determination” … . …

Begeal’s decision to leave the examination room to permit the medical personnel to examine Lacey in private was likewise discretionary. Although Lacey was combative when he first arrived at the hospital, Begeal did not leave the examination room until approximately 20 minutes after that time and only after ensuring that Lacey had calmed down. Based on these circumstances, Begeal “did not feel that [the hospital personnel and Feeney] were in any immediate danger” and concluded that he could safely leave the room and go to the main area in order to, among other things, wash off Lacey’s blood from his clothes. While Begeal’s judgment call proved to be incorrect, “it is not for courts to second-guess the wisdom of discretionary governmental choices, troubling though they may sometimes seem in the glaring clarity of hindsight” … . Feeney v County of Del., 2017 NY Slip Op 03583, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (STATE TROOPER IMMUNE FROM A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT BASED UPON THE TROOPER’S DISCRETIONARY ACTS)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to conform the pleadings to the proof should have been granted in this medical malpractice action. Defendants submitted proof on the relevant issues (the treatment of plaintiff by defendant Slavin on January 26, 2009) and did not demonstrate amending the pleadings would result in any prejudice to them:

As the parties opposing such amendment, defendants had the burden of establishing that they had been prejudiced, that is that they “ha[d] been hindered in the preparation of [their] case or ha[d] been prevented from taking some measure in support of [their] position” … . That burden cannot be met when the difference between the original pleading and the evidence results from “‘proof admitted at the instance or with the acquiescence of [the opposing] party'”… . * * *

… [A]s defendants acquiesced to the introduction of the evidence of Slavin’s negligence on January 26, 2009, they could not meet their burden when they later opposed plaintiff’s cross motion to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial … . Even if this were not the case, defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing prejudice. Defendants’ contentions that they had been unprepared for cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert was conclusory, as defendants failed to offer a single example as to the manner in which the introduction of evidence that Slavin was negligent on January 26, 2009 hindered their cross-examination. Morever, defendants’ claims that they were prejudiced by the introduction of the January 26, 2009 negligence were unsupported by specific examples or proof in the record. More generally, the record establishes that plaintiffs had plainly notified defendants by their bills of particulars that plaintiff had been treated by Slavin on January 26, 2009 and that Slavin’s negligence included his failure to recognize, from imaging studies, the need to perform a closed reduction on plaintiff’s injured leg. Noble v Slavin, 2017 NY Slip Op 03578, 3rd Dept 5-4-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND PLEADINGS TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/PLEADINGS, MOTION TO CONFORM TO PROOF (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/PLEADINGS, AMENDMENT OF (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD 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