You are here: / Negligence
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR.

The Second Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the landlord (New York City Housing Authority, NYCHA) in this assault liability case. Plaintiff-tenant alleged she was assaulted by an intruder who entered the apartment building through a broken door:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person” … . Recovery against a landlord for an assault committed by a third party requires a showing that the landlord’s negligent failure to provide adequate security was a proximate cause of the injury … . “In premises security cases particularly, the necessary causal link between a landlord’s culpable failure to provide adequate security and a tenant’s injuries resulting from a criminal attack in the building can be established only if the assailant gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance. Since even a fully secured entrance would not keep out another tenant, or someone allowed into the building by another tenant, plaintiff can recover only if the assailant was an intruder” … .

Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, NYCHA failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The deposition testimony of the plaintiff submitted in support of the motion raised issues of fact regarding whether the door was operating properly prior to, and on the day of, the incident, and whether [the assailant] was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance … . Ramos v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 01244, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LIABILITY FOR ASSAULT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR)/ASSAULT (LANDLORD-TENANT, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR)

NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

The Second Department determined defendant, who suffered a stroke while driving, could not be held liable for the accident:

“The operator of a vehicle who becomes involved in an accident as the result of suffering a sudden medical emergency will not be chargeable with negligence as long as the emergency was unforeseen” … . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating through deposition testimony, the defendant driver’s medical records, and expert medical evidence that the accident was caused by the defendant driver experiencing an acute stroke at the time of the accident, which was unforeseeable … . Van De Merlen v Karpf, 2017 NY Slip Op 01251, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY)/MEDICAL EMERGENCY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY)

BUILDING OWNER’S AND ELEVATOR COMPANY’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR-INJURY CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

The building owner’s (Boston Properties’) and elevator company’s (Otis’) motions for summary judgment in the elevator-injury case were properly denied:

“An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found” … . Similarly, a building owner that hires an elevator maintenance company to maintain the elevator may be found liable if the owner received notice of a defect and failed to notify the elevator company about it … .

Here, both Otis and the Boston Properties defendants failed to establish their respective prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence offered in support of their respective motions, which included a transcript of the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the bill of particulars describing the accident, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the elevator operated properly and was not defective, or that they had no actual or constructive notice of any alleged defective condition … . Orahovac v CF Lex Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01219, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (BUILDING OWNER’S AND ELEVATOR COMPANY’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR-INJURY CASE PROPERLY DENIED/ELEVATORS (BUILDING OWNER’S AND ELEVATOR COMPANY’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR-INJURY CASE PROPERLY DENIED)

,

MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim was properly granted. The slip and fall allegedly occurred around midnight on March 2/3. The notice of claim was one day late if the incident occurred on March 2 and was timely if it occurred on March 3. The amendment changed the date of the accident stated in the notice from March 2 to March 3:

Here, mere minutes constituted the difference between whether the plaintiff’s fall occurred on March 2, 2012, or March 3, 2012. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the notice of claim and the pleadings to reflect March 3, 2012, as the correct date of the accident. There is no indication that the date originally set forth in the notice of claim as the accident date, March 2, 2012, was set forth in bad faith, the Transit Authority did not demonstrate any actual prejudice as a result of the discrepancy, and the record discloses no basis to presume the existence of prejudice … . Bowers v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01174, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, RENDERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY, PROPERLY GRANTED

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION, LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined, re: plaintiff’s common law negligence cause of action, there was a question of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of a cracking concrete slap which collapsed. However plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed because no applicable provision of the Industrial Code was identified by the plaintiff:

… [T]he defendants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, in which he stated that for up to 10 days prior to the accident, he observed that the place where the concrete eventually collapsed had “lines . . . indicating the breaking points.” Thus, by their own submissions, the defendants raised an issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the plaintiff’s fall to permit them to discover and remedy it … . …

In order to establish a Labor Law § 241(6) claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a specific and applicable provision of the Industrial Code … . Here, although the plaintiff’s bill of particulars alleged a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), it failed to identify any specific provision of the Industrial Code that the defendants allegedly violated … . Furthermore, in opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to allege a violation of any specific provision of the Industrial Code, and did not address the issue … . Grabowski v Board of Mgrs. of Avonova Condominium, 2017 NY Slip Op 01185, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION, LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NJEGLIGENCE (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED)

, , ,

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined defendants’ answers in this medical malpractice action should have been struck because of the failure to turn over the names of defendants’ employees and failure to obey court orders during discovery:

The Supreme Court properly inferred the willful and contumacious character of the defendants’ conduct from their repeated failures over an extended period of time, without an adequate excuse, to comply with the plaintiff’s discovery demands and the court’s discovery orders … . This conduct included: (1) misrepresenting that the surgical booker Marcia Barnaby was no longer employed by the Hospital; (2) failing to disclose Anthony Pastor as a surgical booker; and (3) failing to timely and fully comply with the court’s order to produce an affidavit from Schiff in the form required by the court. “[P]arties, where necessary, will be held responsible for the failure of their lawyers to meet court-ordered deadlines and provide meaningful responses to discovery demands” … . * * *

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we find that the imposition of monetary sanctions was insufficient to punish the defendants and their counsel for their willful and contumacious conduct in failing to timely and fully respond to discovery demands and court orders. Lucas v Stam, 2017 NY Slip Op 01190, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/NEGLIGENCE (DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/ATTORNEYS (NEGLIGENCE, DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS)

,

PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a protective order prohibiting any non-attorney from accompanying plaintiff to a physical examination should not have been issued:

A plaintiff “is entitled to be examined in the presence of [his or] her attorney or other legal representative, as well as an interpreter, if necessary, so long as they do not interfere with the conduct of the examination[ ]” … . Here, the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the plaintiffs’ representative would improperly interfere with the conduct of the injured plaintiff’s physical examination … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a protective order precluding any non-attorney from accompanying the injured plaintiff in the examination room during his physical examination. Henderson v Ross, 2017 NY Slip Op 01186, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)/NEGLIGENCE (PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)/PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (NEGLIGENCE, PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)/DISCOVERY (NEGLIGENCE, PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING ANY NON-LAWYER FROM ATTENDING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED)

, ,

CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined damages could not be apportioned against the (non-party) state in a negligence action in Supreme Court. The plaintiffs alleged a tree branch fell on plaintiffs’ car as plaintiffs were driving on a public street. The plaintiffs sued the property owner, but also filed a claim against the state alleging the state was negligent. The state can only be sued in the Court of Claims. Although, by statute (CPLR 1601], damages can be apportioned against a non-party defendant in the Court of Claims, the Court of Appeals held the statute does not allow damages to be apportioned against the non-party state in Supreme Court:

The statutory language permitting the State to seek apportionment in the Court of Claims against a private defendant if the claimant could have sued that defendant in any court of this State was specifically requested by the office of the Attorney General … . Pursuant to that language, as long as a claimant in the Court of Claims could have commenced an action against a private tortfeasor in any court in the State of New York, then the tortfeasor’s culpable conduct can be considered by the Court of Claims in determining the State’s equitable share of the total liability … . The statute does not, however, contain similar, express enabling language to allow apportionment against the state in a Supreme Court action … .

Plaintiffs, along with the State, argue that the inclusion of unambiguous language permitting the Court of Claims to consider the liability of a nonparty tortfeasor — while, at the same time, omitting language to allow the factfinder in Supreme Court to consider the liability of the State — demonstrates the Legislature’s intent not to allow apportionment of the State’s liability in Supreme Court. Moreover, even apart from the absence of language permitting apportionment against the State in Supreme Court, CPLR 1601 (1) provides that a nonparty tortfeasor’s relative culpability must not be considered in apportioning fault “if the claimant . . . with due diligence . . . was unable to obtain jurisdiction over such person in said action” … . Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01145, CtApp 2-14-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES,  CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)/IMMUNITY (NEGLIGENCE, CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT)

NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF. 

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert had raised a question of fact about whether the actions of defendant truck driver (negligent application of the brakes) contributed to the accident:

… [A] tractor-trailer … driven by Mark C. Shaw … collided with a car driven by defendant Robin F. Lewis … , after Lewis made a sudden left turn in front of the tractor-trailer. After that initial collision, the tractor-trailer jackknifed, collided with plaintiff’s car, and ended up in a ditch on the opposite side of the road, on top of plaintiff’s car.

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them on the ground that Lewis’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the collision. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affidavit of an expert forensic examiner … . Plaintiff’s expert opined within a reasonable degree of professional certainty that Shaw’s conduct was a proximate cause of the collision with plaintiff’s vehicle because he inappropriately and negligently applied the brakes, which caused the tractor-trailer to jackknife after the initial impact with Lewis’s vehicle. The expert’s opinion was not based on speculation, but was supported by voluminous deposition testimony, police reports, and the New York State Commercial Driver’s Manual … . Pacino v Lewis, 2017 NY Slip Op 01099, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)/TRUCKS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF)

TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Although plaintiff’s foot apparently “picked up” the corner of a rug, there was no showing the rug was defective or dangerous:

Although the rug may not have been designed to be placed over another rug or the recessed mat system, the video of the incident, which was submitted in opposition to the motion, shows that decedent tripped over the front edge of the rug. There is no indication that the rug slipped, and there is no record evidence that the rug constituted a defective or dangerous condition at the time of the fall. We conclude that “the mere placement of the [rug] by the front door of the defendant’s premises was not an inherently dangerous condition” … . Slattery v Tops Mkts., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01078, 4th Dept 2-10-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS)/SLIP AND FALL (TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS)/RUGS (SLIP AND FALL, TRIPPING OVER EDGE OF A RUG NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SHOWING RUG DEFECTIVE OR DANGEROUS)

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