You are here: / Negligence
, ,

DISMISSAL OF INTENTIONAL TORT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED SUBSEQUENT ACTION SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, NO NEGLIGENT ASSAULT IN NEW YORK.

The Second Department noted that New York does not recognize an action for negligent assault. Plaintiff’s intentional tort causes stemming from an arrest by a security guard were dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff then brought suit under a negligence theory:

“[U]nder New York’s transactional analysis approach to res judicata, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Here, the purported negligence cause of action asserted in the plaintiff’s second action arose from the same operative facts as the dismissed intentional tort claims, and could have been raised in the first action. Accordingly, in view of the previous litigation between the parties, the Supreme Court properly directed the dismissal of that cause of action on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the negligence cause of action on the additional ground that the allegations in support of it failed to state a cause of action. The allegations that Doe physically injured the plaintiff while restraining and arresting him did not transform the plaintiff’s time-barred cause of action alleging assault into a timely cause of action alleging negligence, as New York does not recognize a cause of action to recover for negligent assault … . Johnson v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02410, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

,

FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOWED HOW PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WARRANTED A SANCTION, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMAND THE TAPE OR ASK THAT IT BE PRESERVED.

The Second Department determined defendants should have been sanctioned for not preserving a videotape which allegedly showed plaintiff deliberately allowing a car to run over her toes. Plaintiff had not asked that the videotape be preserved. The Second Department determined the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from introducing any evidence of the contents of the tape. The Second Department further held that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because her conclusory affidavit was not sufficient to demonstrate the absence of comparative fault:

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to impose any sanction. The plaintiff sustained her burden of establishing that spoliation occurred, given that the defendants failed to preserve the surveillance video despite their knowledge of a reasonable likelihood of litigation regarding the incident, and the highly relevant nature of the video evidence to that litigation … . However, since the destruction of the evidence did not deprive the plaintiff of her ability to prove her claim so as to warrant the drastic sanction of striking the defendants’ answer, the appropriate sanction for the spoliation herein is to preclude the defendants from offering any evidence in this action regarding the alleged contents of the erased surveillance video … . Rokach v Taback, 2017 NY Slip Op 02456, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

,

CLAIMANT STRUCK A DOWNED LIGHT POLE WHICH HAD ROTTED BELOW GROUND, STATE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION.

The Second Department determined the state did not have actual or constructive notice that a light pole was rotten. Claimant was injured when his vehicle struck a downed pole. The rot was not visible above ground. Evidence that rot was visible on other poles did not provide adequate notice:

Here, the Court of Claims correctly concluded that the claimant failed to establish that the State had either actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition of the subject light pole. Rather, the evidence established that the rot on the pole was at the bottom of the pole, which was buried between six and seven feet below ground. Thus, a reasonable inspection would not have revealed the dangerous condition. The claimant’s evidence that a witness noticed rot on some of the wooden poles along Ocean Parkway during the prior 15 years is insufficient to provide notice regarding the specific pole involved in the accident. “A general awareness of a recurring problem in insufficient, without more, to establish constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the accident” … . Jeffries v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02409, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

FOOT OF A DECORATIVE FENCE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Second Department determined the foot of a decorative fence over which plaintiff tripped was open and obvious as a matter of law and not actionable:

While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition … , “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 usually 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 defendants established, prima facie, that the fence, including the “leg” or foot of the fence, was open and obvious, as it was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to her contention, she did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the foot of the fence constituted a “trap for the unwary” because it was somehow obscured … . Gerner v Shop-Rite of Uniondale, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02407, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact in this slip and fall case. Although there was a storm in progress, defendant’s snow removal efforts may have exacerbated the ice condition (facts not described in decision):

Here, in support of its motion, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, which included the affidavit of its meteorologist, as well as certified climatological data, which demonstrated that the subject accident occurred while a storm was in progress … . In opposition, the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff, which included her affidavit and the affidavit of her meteorologist, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether any snow removal efforts the defendant undertook prior to the accident in relation to the storm either created or exacerbated the ice condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall … . Dylan v CEJ Props., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02403, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

,

19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT.

The Second Department determined a 19-year-old notice of claim did not meet the written notice requirement for a sidewalk defect in this slip and fall case:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) limits the City’s duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for those defects or hazardous conditions which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location” … . Accordingly, “prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City” … .

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that a search of its records revealed that it had not received any prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “To satisfy a prior written notice statute, the notice relied upon by a plaintiff must not be too remote in time” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submission of a notice of claim, filed almost 19 years prior to the accident complained of, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact since it was too remote in time to constitute prior written notice within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) … . Gellman v Cooke, 2017 NY Slip Op 02404, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the lead paint poisoning complaint should have been dismissed because plaintiff was unable to show defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition and defendants were not under a duty to test for lead:

Defendants submitted affidavits and deposition testimony establishing that they were not aware of any peeling or chipping paint on the premises prior to the inspection conducted by the [Monroe County Department of Health]. Defendants also established that neither plaintiff nor the relatives with whom plaintiff resided at the premises ever complained to either defendant of any peeling or chipping paint on the premises. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he failed to raise an issue of fact whether defendants were aware of chipping and peeling paint on the premises … , or whether defendants retained the requisite right of entry to the apartment to sustain a claim for constructive notice … . Furthermore, “[w]ithout evidence legally sufficient to permit a jury to rationally infer that the defendant had constructive notice of a dangerous condition, the defendant cannot be held liable for failure to warn or to remedy the defect” … . Consequently, absent evidence raising a triable issue of fact whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the premises, the court erred in denying that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the failure to warn claim. …

“The Court of Appeals in Chapman (97 NY2d at 21) expressly decline[d] to impose a new duty on landlords to test for the existence of lead in leased properties based solely upon the general knowledge of the dangers of lead-based paints in older homes” … . Taggart v Fandel, 2017 NY Slip Op 02177, 4th Dept 3-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS.

The Fourth Department determined the application for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly granted, despite the absence of an adequate excuse and the lack of timely notice of the underlying facts:

Here, even assuming, arguendo, that claimants failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their delay, we conclude that the remaining factors support the court’s exercise of discretion in granting their application. Although respondents did not obtain knowledge of the facts underlying the claim until approximately nine months after the expiration of the 90-day period, we conclude under the circumstances of this case that “this was a reasonable time, particularly in light of the fact that respondent[s] do[ ] not contend that there has been any subsequent change in the condition of the [premises] which might hinder the investigation or defense of this action’ ” … . Moreover, claimants made a sufficient showing that the late notice will not substantially prejudice respondents, and respondents failed to “respond with a particularized evidentiary showing that [they] will be substantially prejudiced if the late notice is allowed” … . We therefore conclude that the court “properly exercised its broad discretion in granting [claimants’] application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5)” … . Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 02316, 4th Dept 3-24-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND LACK OF TIMELY NOTICE OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS)

,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall:

During his 50-h hearing, the injured plaintiff testified that he was walking on the sidewalk and was about to cross the street when his right foot caught on “some sort of stone,” causing him to fall. He did not see the stone before the accident, but after he fell, he looked and saw stones embedded in the earth around a tree, which caught his foot. At his deposition, however, the injured plaintiff testified that as he was about to cross the street, he was paying attention to traffic and his foot “hit something” causing him to lose his balance and fall. This time, he identified a raised portion of the sidewalk, approximately three feet away from the tree, as the cause of his fall. He distinguished this area from the cobblestones around the tree and testified that he did not make contact with the cobblestones, as he was “further down, to the side of the tree.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the injured plaintiff’s own contradictory testimony does not create a question of fact … . Rather, it demonstrates that he is unable to identify the cause of his fall and any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation … . Vojvodic v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02085, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendant city owned the sanitation truck (driven by McPhillips) which struck the car in which plaintiff was a passenger:

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the parties’ deposition testimony, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff was not comparatively at fault for the happening of the subject accident, and that McPhillips was negligent. Contrary to the City’s contention, the transcript of McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not reveal a triable issue of fact as to whether he demonstrated a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision into the other vehicle. Even if, as McPhillips testified, the other vehicle came to a sudden stop at the subject intersection’s yellow traffic light, McPhillips should have anticipated that the other vehicle might come to a stop at the intersection … . Furthermore, McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not rebut the inference of negligence from the rear-end collision, as he testified that he knew that the road was wet from a recent rain shower and he failed to demonstrate that his skid on known road conditions was unavoidable … . Tumminello v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02083, 2nd Dept, 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISION (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 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