You are here: / Negligence
,

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)

,

WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The First Department determined the city’s summary judgment motion was properly granted in this bicycle accident case. Plaintiff was injured when his bicycle struck a pile of gravel near a manhole that was being accessed for sewer maintenance. Because sewer maintenance is a governmental function, the written notice requirement applies. Without written notice of the condition, the city cannot be held liable:

This action seeks recovery for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Daniel Chambers when the front wheel of the bicycle he was riding came into contact with gravel located around a large hole, near a manhole cover. …

The court properly dismissed the action as plaintiff failed to establish that an exception to the prior written notice requirement of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2) is at issue here … . The City’s ownership of a manhole cover, which allows the City to access the sewer system and water pipes in order to perform maintenance and repairs, does not provide the City with “a special benefit from that property unrelated to the public use” … . Accordingly, it does not fall within the “special use” exception … . Chambers v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01120, 1st Dept 2-10-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED)/BICYCLE ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED)

,

SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF PREMISES ASSAULT.

The Second Department determined the school’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Plaintiff and her father were allegedly assaulted 30 to 100 feet beyond the entrance to the infant plaintiff’s school by students from the school:

With respect to the contention that the defendants may be liable for the infant plaintiff’s injuries, a school’s duty is coextensive with, and concomitant with, its physical custody and control over a child …. “When that custody ceases because the child has passed out of the orbit of its authority in such a way that the parent is perfectly  free to reassume control over the child’s protection, the school’s custodial duty also ceases” … . “As a result, where a student is injured off school premises, there can generally be no actionable breach of a duty that extends only to the boundaries of school property” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they may not be held liable for the infant plaintiff’s injuries since, at the time of the subject incident, the infant plaintiff was no longer in their custody or under their control and was, thus, outside the orbit of their authority … .

Nor is there a basis to impose liability upon the defendants for the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff or her father for failure to provide adequate security, since the defendants demonstrated that they did not affirmatively assume a duty to protect either plaintiff from criminal activity which occurred off the school premises … . Hernandez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00962, 2nd Dept 2-8-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF PREMISES ASSAULT)/NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF PREMISES ASSAULT)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF PREMISES ASSAULT)

, ,

NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s notice of claim in this medical malpractice action was timely served as a matter of law under the continuous treatment doctrine. Two justices, in a concurring decision, agreed that the action should not have been dismissed, but argued there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied:

On January 25, 2006, plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant HHC. At the 50-h hearing in June 2006, plaintiff testified that while her last actual medical treatment at Lincoln Hospital occurred on October 19, 2005, when hospital personnel removed the sutures from her leg, she received a follow-up appointment to return to Lincoln Hospital on October 24, 2005. Plaintiff stated that she arrived at Lincoln Hospital for treatment on that date, but was informed that the staff could not locate her medical records and that she should return to the Hospital in one week, on October 31, 2005. Plaintiff testified that she did, in fact, return on October 31, only to have the staff inform her that they did not accept her insurance and that she should seek treatment elsewhere.

… [P]laintiff argued, her last treatment date was October 31, 2005 and thus, she had timely served her notice of claim on January 25, 2006. Hill v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00914, 1st Dept 2-7-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)

, ,

ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT.

The Fourth Department determined only the failure to warn causes of action in this lawsuit against a pesticide manufacturer were preempted by federal law. Supreme Court should not have dismissed the negligence, defective design/manufacture and breach of warranty causes of action. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted only those causes of action that could result in state labelling requirements:

The preemption provision of FIFRA provides that, “[i]n general[,] . . . a State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter” (7 USC § 136v [a]). On the other hand, FIFRA provides that, in the interest of “[u]niformity[,] . . . [s]uch State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in dismissing the third, fifth, and sixth causes of action of plaintiff’s amended complaint, as well as those parts of the fourth cause of action that do not allege a failure to warn. Plaintiff’s causes of action and claims alleging defendant’s breach of warranty, ordinary negligence, and defective design and manufacture of its product, i.e., theories unrelated to labeling or packaging, are not preempted by FIFRA … . Esposito v Contec, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00842, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/PREEMPTION (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/PESTICIDES (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)

SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, INSPECTION THREE HOURS BEFORE THE FALL DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

The Fourth Department determined the complaint against the snow removal contractor (JB Landscaping) in this slip and fall case should have been dismissed. The fact that the property was inspected three hours before the incident did not warrant dismissal of the constructive notice cause of action against the property manager (Ciminelli) and the property owner (205 Park):

We conclude that the contract between JB Landscaping and Ciminelli was not so comprehensive and exclusive that it entirely displaced Ciminelli’s and 205 Park’s duty to maintain the premises safely, such that JB Landscaping assumed a duty to plaintiff. Although the contract in the case at bar delegated all of the snow and ice removal to JB Landscaping, along with responsibility for monitoring the property 24 hours per day, seven days per week, the contract also provided that 205 Park and the tenant of the property could request additional services from JB Landscaping, including snow and ice removal. In addition, the contract reserved Ciminelli’s rights “to determine the depth of snow at locations where JB Landscaping performs snowplowing” and to direct JB Landscaping to reposition or remove accumulated snow piles. The contract also required weekly submission of maintenance logs to Ciminelli and preapproval from Ciminelli to engage a subcontractor to assist with snow and ice removal. * * *

The weather records … recited … that from 3:01 a.m. until 6:24 a.m. the short term forecasts called for falling temperatures, and that any wet or untreated pavement could result in patchy black ice. Plaintiff testified that she fell at 7:45 a.m. In our view, the inspection of the area approximately three hours before the plaintiff fell does not establish ” that the ice formed so close in time to the accident that [defendant(s)] could not reasonably have been expected to notice and remedy the condition’ ” … . Waters v Ciminelli Dev. Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00854, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, INSPECTION THREE HOURS BEFORE THE FALL DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE)/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, INSPECTION THREE HOURS BEFORE THE FALL DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE)/SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR (SLIP AND FALL, (SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent entrustment case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the defendant car rental company (BAR) knew or should have known that an unlicensed driver (Kirksey) would drive the car (which was rented to defendant Jones). The dissent argued that knowledge an unlicensed driver would use the car does not amount to knowledge the car would be driven by an incompetent driver:

The fact that Kirksey did not possess a driver’s license is a factor to consider in determining whether BAR knew that Kirksey was incompetent to operate the vehicle … . While we agree with the dissent that “the absence or possession of a driver’s license is not relevant to the issue of negligence” in the operation of a motor vehicle … , this is a negligent entrustment cause of action, where the issue does not concern the manner in which the accident occurred. Rather, the issue is whether BAR should have entrusted the vehicle to Kirksey in the first instance. Graham v Jones, 2017 NY Slip Op 00835, 4th Dept 2-3-17

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR)/NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR)

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