You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS AGAINST EMERGENCY-ROOM PHYSICIANS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S GUNSHOT WOUNDS; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY FAMILIARITY WITH EMERGENCY MEDICINE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted because the expert affidavit offered in opposition was deemed “conclusory” and insufficient to raise a question of fact. Plaintiff’s decedent died from three gunshot wounds. Plaintiff’s expert did not demonstrate any familiarity with the practice of emergency medicine:

“While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field . . . the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . “‘Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered'” … .

Here, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation of a physician who engaged in the private practice of internal medicine and cardiology. However, the affirmation did not indicate that the physician had training in emergency medicine or what, if anything, the physician did to become familiar with the standard of care for this specialty … . Furthermore, the affirmation was conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by the evidence … . Thus, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Quinones v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04406, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s expert did not demonstrate any familiarity with emergency medicine. Plaintiff’s decedent died from gunshot wounds. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit was deemed “conclusory” and insufficient to raise a question of fact.

 

, , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although plaintiff was precluded from offering expert evidence and therefore could not prove medical malpractice, the negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged scarring and burns caused by laser hair removal:

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the negligence cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case in the absence of the testimony of an expert witness. At trial, the plaintiff may, through the testimony of his treating physician, records, or “other evidence,” be able to establish “the standard of care in performing laser hair removal and the known risks of the procedure” … . Therefore, contrary to the court’s determination, although the plaintiff is precluded from offering the testimony of an expert witness whose identity must be disclosed pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), at this juncture, it cannot be determined that the plaintiff will be unable to establish a prima facie case of negligence … . Mishli v Advanced Dermatology Laser & Cosmetic Surgery, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 04386, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: In this case alleging scarring and burning during laser hair removal, the dismissal of a medical malpractice cause of action because the identity of an expert witness has not been disclosed did not necessarily preclude a negligence cause of action proven by the testimony of plaintiff’s treating physician.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROVED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS INSPECTED (AT MOST) AN HOUR AND TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE FALL; THAT PROOF WAS SUFFICIENT TO AWARD DEFENDANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this slip and fall case proved it did not have actual or constructive notice of the food on the floor where plaintiff slipped and fell. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

… [T]he defendant established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition alleged by the plaintiff to have caused the accident. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of its employee, as well as the “Daily Floor-walk / Safety Inspection” record for the day of the incident, which demonstrated that the area in question was last inspected between 2:47 p.m. and 3:40 p.m. on the date of the accident and that no hazardous condition was found in that location … . The employee testified that if he had observed any hazardous condition on the floor, he would have immediately cleaned it … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Arbit v Costco Wholesale Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04366, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: This is a rare decision which gives some insight into how a defendant can prove a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition, here food on the floor, which is alleged to have caused a slip and fall. Defendant produced a “Daily Floor-walk/Safety Inspection” record and employee testimony showing the area was inspected, at most, an hour and ten minutes before the alleged slip and fall.

 

, ,

THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIES EVEN WHERE A NEW ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A PRIOR ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosado, determined the relation-back doctrine applied to the wrongful death action against Dr. Ozcan and reinstated that cause of action. The court noted that the relation-back doctrine applies where, as here, a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action:

Dr. Ozcan does not substantively dispute that the claims in the prior and instant actions arose out of the same conduct or that she is united in interest with Montefiore [Medical Center]. Therefore, the only question to be decided, is whether the third prong of the relation-back doctrine has been established.

Dr. Ozcan, who was named as a defendant in the First Action, should have known that, but for a mistake, the wrongful death claim would have been brought against her as well … .

Application of the relation-back doctrine is proper even where, as here, a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action … . Picchioni v Sabur, 2024 NY Slip Op 04362, First Dept 9–5-24

Practice Point: The relation-back doctrine applies to render an action timely brought even where a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action.

 

,

A DANGEROUS CONDITION, A DOOR WHICH SWUNG CLOSED ABRUPTLY, IS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF; TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DOOR, THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT EVIDENCE THE DOOR WAS INSPECTED OR MAINTAINED AND FOUND SAFE CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INJURY; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT SUCH EVIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants in this premises liability case should not have been granted summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged a door closed abruptly, striking her and causing her to fall. The defendants presented no evidence when the door was last inspected or maintained. Therefore the defendants did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition of the door on the date of the accident did not constitute a dangerous condition … . … [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, as the defendants failed to submit any inspection or maintenance records or any other evidence showing when, if ever, the door was last inspected or maintained prior to the accident … . Ogletree v Long Is. Univ., 2024 NY Slip Op 04329, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment where plaintiff alleges a defective condition on defendant’s property caused injury, the defendant must present proof the specific area or object alleged to be defective was inspected or maintained and found safe close in time to the incident. Over the past few years, hundreds of reversals have been based on defendant’s failure to submit such proof in support of summary judgment. The proof is essential to demonstrating defendant did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, determined defendant was an out-of-possession landlord who was not responsible for the alleged dangerous condition on the property and the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, although mentioned in the bill of particulars, were not pleaded. Plaintiff was doing work on cabinets when she was struck by a piece of wood that flew off a table saw operated by another worker. She sued under a negligence theory (dangerous condition) and under Labor Law section 200 (which codifies common law negligence):

“[A] landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … . “‘An out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for injuries that occur on its premises only if the landlord has retained control over the premises and if the landlord is contractually or statutorily obligated to repair or maintain the premises or has assumed a duty to repair or maintain the premises by virtue of a course of conduct'” … .

… [T]he evidence … , including … the written lease … and transcripts of the deposition testimony … established … that the defendant was an out-of-possession landlord that had relinquished control of the subject property to Tobin and had not assumed a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by a course of conduct … . Although the defendant reserved a right of entry under the lease, this did not provide a sufficient basis on which to impose liability upon the defendant for injuries caused by a dangerous condition, as the condition did not violate a specific statute, nor was it a significant structural or design defect … .

Modern practice permits a plaintiff, in some circumstances, to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by relying on an unpleaded cause of action that is supported by the plaintiff’s submissions, where the plaintiff has not engaged in unexcused protracted delay in presenting the new theory of liability… . … Here … the plaintiff’s unpleaded causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) are not supported by the plaintiff’s submissions, as the record demonstrates that the plaintiff’s work at the time of her injury did not involve “construction, excavation or demolition work” within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6), or “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Miranda v 1320 Entertainment, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant demonstrated out-of-possession landlord status and was therefore not liable for an alleged dangerous condition on the property.​

Practice Point: Although unpleaded causes of action mentioned for the first time in the bill of particulars can be considered in opposition to a summary judgment motion, here the unpleaded Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action were unsupported by the plaintiff’s submissions. The complaint should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE FROM BEHIND FLED THE SCENE BUT WAS IDENTIFIED BY A LICENSE PLATE FOUND AT THE SCENE; DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE BUT DENIED OPERATING IT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THAT ALLEGATION DID NOT OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF PERMISSIVE USE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end traffic-accident case, determined defendant’s allegation he was not driving his vehicle at the time of the accident did not overcome the presumption of permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388(1). The vehicle which struck plaintiffs’ stopped vehicle fled the scene. But defendant admitted the license plate found at the scene was from his vehicle:

The plaintiff Manu Kanwar was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff Mahesh Kashyap when it was struck in the rear by another vehicle. Although the rear vehicle fled the scene, it allegedly was identified by its license plate, which had fallen off that vehicle at the accident scene. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. In his answer, the defendant, inter alia, admitted to owning a vehicle bearing the license plate number identified in the complaint, asserted an affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiffs were comparatively at fault, and asserted a counterclaim against Kashyap. * * *

The plaintiffs’ affidavits demonstrated, inter alia, that Kashyap’s vehicle was stopped for the traffic condition ahead when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle and that the defendant, as the owner of the vehicle, was negligent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 388, 1129[a] …). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In his affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, the defendant merely averred that he was not operating his vehicle at the time of the accident. However, this was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1)… , and it was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his vehicle was not involved in the accident … . Kashyap v Dasilva, 2024 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant acknowledged ownership of the vehicle which struck plaintiff’s stopped vehicle from behind and left the scene, but denied he was operating it at the time of the accident. That denial did not overcome the presumption that whoever was driving the vehicle was doing so with the owner’s permission (Vehicle and Traffic Law 388). Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

 

, , ,

PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT BEFORE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the motion court should have first considered plaintiff’s (decedent’s) motion to strike defendants’ answer (for spoliation of evidence) before considering defendants’ motion for summary judgment (which was granted). Decedent alleged there was video footage showing the slip and fall which was overwritten 72 hours after the fall:

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126” … . The Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction would be imposed for spoliation of evidence … . “The sanction of dismissal of a pleading may be imposed even absent willful and contumacious conduct if a party has been so prejudiced that dismissal is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness” …  “However, a less severe sanction or no sanction is appropriate where the missing evidence does not deprive the moving party of the ability to establish his or her case or defense” … .

A defendant whose answer is stricken is “deemed to admit all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability” … , and summary judgment is warranted in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability upon the appropriate motion … .

Here, since the decedent’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer or, in the alternative, for an adverse inference instruction at trial for spoliation of evidence sought sanctions that would impact the defendants’ ability to establish, prima facie, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court should have considered the merits of the decedent’s motion before rendering a determination on the issue of liability on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them … . Hudesman v Dawson Holding Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 04307, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Where a plaintiff’s motion can affect a defendant’s ability to defend an action (here a motion to strike the answer for spoliation of evidence), that motion should be considered first, before considering a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

 

, , ,

THE MOTION COURT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE CROSS-CLAIMS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should have considered the deposition transcripts, which were certified but unsigned, and should have granted defendant driver’s (Jara Mejia’s) motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the cross-claims. Jara Mejia’s car was stopped when it was struck from behind:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . In support of his motion, Jara Mejia submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony and transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs, Tsering, and Cruz Arce. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, Jara Mejia’s unsigned but certified deposition transcript was admissible, “since the transcript was submitted by the party deponent himself and, therefore, was adopted as accurate by the deponent” … . In addition, while the remaining deposition transcripts were also unsigned, they were certified and their accuracy was not challenged … . Thus, the deposition transcripts were admissible and should have been considered by the court on Jara Mejia’s motion. Gironza v Macedonio, 2024 NY Slip Op 04306, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when submitted by the party deponent himself.

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when their accuracy is not challenged.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PETITIONER-BUS-DRIVER’S ACCIDENT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER’S ACCIDENT, INJURIES OR THE FACTS UNDERLYING HER THEORY OF LIABILITY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent. determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the city should not have been granted. Although petitioner demonstrated the city had timely knowledge of the existence of the pothole which allegedly caused petitioner-bus-driver’s injury, petitioner did not demonstrate the city had timely knowledge of her accident, injuries or the facts underlying her theory of liability:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the appellants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter … . “‘Actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim means knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the [proposed] notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves'” … . “Unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions that the municipality acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim through the contents of reports and other documentation are insufficient” … .

Here, although the petitioner’s submission of photographs and evidence that the defect was repaired after the accident may have demonstrated that the appellants had actual knowledge of the defect, actual knowledge of a defect is not tantamount to actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim where, as here, the record did not establish that the appellants were aware of the petitioner’s accident, her injuries, and the facts underlying her theory of liability … . Matter of Ippolito v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 04265, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Here petitioner’s inability to demonstrate the city had timely knowledge of her accident, injuries or the facts underlying her theory of liability supported denial of her petition for leave to file a late notice of claim. The fact that the city had timely knowledge of the road defect which allegedly caused petitioner’s accident was not enough.

 

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