You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the purported medical malpractice by a corporation (Meeting House) under a piercing-the-corporate-veil theory:

Generally, … piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . “‘[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego'” … . In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, “[g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form, such that one of the corporations is a mere instrumentality, agent and alter ego of the other” … .

… Meeting House failed to adhere to corporate formalities, such as holding board of directors’ meetings. Meeting House was owned and controlled by an employee of the hospital, whose office was in the hospital, pursuant to a contract with the hospital. The hospital had sole discretion over the number of shares and who would be the shareholders. Meeting House was also undercapitalized, since it appears that its assets consisted of a non-interest-bearing loan from the hospital … . Its budget and any amendments thereto had to be approved by the hospital. The common ownership, leadership, and control, and the common location on the grounds of the hospital and in the hospital itself, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the corporate veil should be pierced … . Midson v Meeting House Lane Med. Practice, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 04261, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for what it takes to raise a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced in support of a vicarious liability theory.

 

, ,

THE UNINSURED PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS, AFTER TRIAL FOR AN INJURY WHICH LEFT HIM PARALYZED; DEFENDANT REQUESTED A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, in a matter of first impression, determined defendant in this negligence action was entitled to a hearing pursuant to CPLR 4545 concerning damages awarded for future medical expenses. Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was struck by a railroad tie which was dropped from above, and was paralyzed. Plaintiff was awarded tens of millions of dollars after trial. Defendant argued the uninsured plaintiff may be entitled to future medical costs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and requested a CPLR 4545 collateral source hearing:

This appeal presents a question of first impression in New York involving the effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on collateral source offsets in personal injury actions, to wit: whether a defendant may be entitled to a collateral source hearing pursuant to CPLR 4545 for the purpose of establishing that an uninsured plaintiff’s future medical expenses will, with reasonable certainty, be covered in part by a private health insurance policy, as long as the plaintiff takes the steps necessary to procure the policy. Among other reasons, since providing a defendant an offset under such circumstances would serve the “ultimate goal of CPLR 4545 to eliminate duplicate recovery by a plaintiff” … , we conclude that the defendant was entitled to a hearing pursuant to CPLR 4545 to demonstrate the extent, if any, to which the plaintiff’s future medical expenses would be reduced by available insurance coverage. We express no opinion, however, about the appropriate outcome following the hearing.

… [W]e modify the amended judgment by deleting the award of damages for the plaintiff’s future medical expenses and … remit this matter to the Supreme Court … , for a collateral source hearing on the issue of those expenses, with entry of an appropriate second amended judgment thereafter. Liciaga v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 04257, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: If an uninsured plaintiff, who was awarded damages to cover future medical costs, may be entitled to future medical costs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, defendant may be entitled to a CPLR 4545 collateral source hearing.​

 

, ,

THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID toll of the statute of limitations applied and the negligence action against defendant municipality was timely commenced:

The plaintiff alleged that he was injured on May 24, 2019, when he was seated on a swing that collapsed at a playground owned and operated by the defendants, causing him to fall to the ground. Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, arguing that the action was not timely commenced within the applicable one-year and 90-day statute of limitations. In an order dated August 3, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i and CPLR 217-a, an action against a municipality to recover damages for personal injuries must be commenced within one year and 90 days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based. Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the applicable statute of limitations started to run from January 5, 2020, the date on which the plaintiff turned 18 years old (see CPLR 208), and that the action was not timely commenced within one year and 90 days from that date by April 5, 2021 … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff established that Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8), which was issued in connection with the COVID-19 public health crisis, and subsequent executive orders extending the duration thereof, tolled the applicable statute of limitations for a 228-day period from March 20, 2020, to November 3, 2020, and thus, the action was timely commenced prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations on November 19, 2021 … . Fuhrmann v Town of Riverhead, 2024 NY Slip Op 04248, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Here the COVID toll of the statute of limitations extended the time for commencing the negligence action against the municipality by 228 days.

 

, , ,

HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED A CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE STATE ASSUMES A DUTY OF PROTECTION AGAINST HARM FOR A CHILD IN ITS CUSTODY; THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE STATE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY, OVER AND ABOVE THAT OWED THE GENERAL PUBLIC (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, over a concurrence, determined the complaint in this Child Victims Act action alleging sexual abuse while under the care of the state should not have been dismissed. The issue was whether the complaint must allege a special duty owed by the government to the plaintiff. The Third Department found that a special duty need not be alleged to survive a motion to dismiss under the facts alleged:

A cause of action for negligence requires proof that defendant owed the claimant a legally recognized duty, that “defendant breached that duty and that such breach was a proximate cause of an injury suffered by the [claimant]” … . That said, “an agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . “A special duty can arise in three situations: (1) the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted; (2) the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally; or (3) the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Claimant does not dispute that he has not pleaded one of those three bases for a special duty, instead contending that he was not required to so plead because he was in OCFS’s [Office of Children’s and Family Services’] custody.

We agree. Mindful that our review requires us to determine “whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory” … , claimant’s failure to plead a special duty is not fatal to the extent his claim alleges negligence in the performance of obligations stemming from OCFS’s custody of him during his placement at the Schenectady facility … . When a government entity assumes custody of a person, thus diminishing that person’s ability to self-protect or access those usually charged with such protection, that entity owes to that person a duty of protection against harms that are reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances … . The duty of protection is coextensive with the entity’s “physical custody of and control” of the person, terminating at the point the person passes out of the “orbit of [the entity’s] authority” … . Thus, we have held that “[a] governmental foster care agency is under a duty to adequately supervise the children in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision,” including “negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home” … . A.J. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 04231, Third Dept 8-15-24

Practice Point; When the state assumes custody of a child, it owes the child a duty of protection against harm. Under the facts of this case, the plaintiff was not required to alleged the state owed a special duty to the plaintiff.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STOPPED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS REAR-ENDED BY DEFENDANT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE BEEN STOPPED ON AN ENTRANCE RAMP; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PROPERLY SURVIVED DISMSSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in the rear-end-collision traffic accident case. However, because plaintiff may have been parked on an entrance ramp to an expressway, the comparative negligence affirmative defense properly survived dismissal:

A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through the submission of, among other things, her affidavit, which established that the plaintiff’s vehicle was parked on the side of a service road to the Major Deegan Expressway in the Bronx (hereinafter the expressway), with the hazard lights activated, when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence with admissible evidence … . …

The plaintiff also established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence by demonstrating that she was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima face showing, however, the defendants raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident, including whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on the entrance ramp to the expressway (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202[a][1][j] …). Ramirez v Greiner, 2024 NY Slip Op 04154, Second Dept 8-7-24

Practice Point: Unless defendant offers a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision with plaintiff’s stopped vehicle, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on liability.​

Practice Point: However, summary judgment on liability in favor of plaintiff does not preclude a valid comparative-fault affirmative defense.

 

PLAINTIFF, AN INNOCENT PASSENGER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSSING DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AS AGAINST HER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff (Brizan), a passenger in a car involved in an accident, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing defendant’s affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence, contributory negligence and culpable conduct on Brizan’s part:

The right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers (see CPLR 3212[g] …). Brizan demonstrated, prima facie, that she did not engage in any culpable conduct that contributed to the happening of the accident … . Husbands v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 04126, Second Dept 8-7-24

Practice Point: An innocent passenger in a traffic accident is not subject to the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant against the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding.​

 

, ,

IN A MED MAL CASE, AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WHICH MAKES ASSERTIONS UNSUPPORTED AND BELIED BY THE RECORD AND, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASSERTS ISSUES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined the plaintiffs’ expert did not raise a question of fact on whether the defendants (the Golden defendants) met the appropriate standard of care in this medical malpractice action:

Opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record. An expert cannot speculate, guess, or reach their conclusion by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence. The opinion must be supported either by facts disclosed by the evidence or by facts known to the expert personally. It is essential that the facts upon which the opinion is based be established, or fairly inferable, from the evidence … .

Here, the Golden defendants’ expert’s affirmation, which is based on information contained in the relevant medical records and deposition testimony, established prima facie their entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiffs’ expert affirmations as pertain to the Golden defendants are refuted by the medical records and deposition testimony … , do not specifically controvert the opinion of defendants’ expert … , are conclusory and speculative, and fail to raise a triable issue of fact … .

An expert’s affirmation that sets forth general conclusions, misstatements of evidence, and unsupported assertions, and which fails to address the opinions of defendant’s expert, is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . As is one which raises for the first time in opposition to summary judgment a new theory of liability that has not been set forth in the bills of particulars or in the complaint … . Plaintiffs’ expert affirmations state for the first time in opposition to summary judgment that the Golden defendants departed from accepted practice when, after learning that decedent’s headache had lasted from two to four days, Dr. Golden failed to refer him to the emergency room for a CT scan. This theory is neither in plaintiffs’ complaints nor bills of particulars; is speculative, conclusory, and contradicted by the record; and should not have been considered by Supreme Court … . Cabrera v Golden, 2024 NY Slip Op 04112, First Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: Many med mal decisions reject without explanation expert opinion affidavits which are deemed “speculative” or “conclusory.” This opinion provides insight into the meaning of those terms.

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF BASED UPON THE MUNICIPALITY’S LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT SALT APPLIED TO MELT ICE CREATED A POOL OF WATER WHICH FROZE AND CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the municipality, which had contracted with the school district to provide salting services, owed plaintiff a duty based upon the municipality’s launching an instrument of harm. It was alleged the defendant municipality’s use of salt to melt ice resulted in a frozen pool of water where plaintiff slipped and fell:

… [P]laintiffs submitted the affidavit of an expert, who opined that defendants’ use of sodium chloride (rock salt) created a dangerous condition and launched a force of harm because the rock salt would have caused water to flow and pool near the area where plaintiff fell. The expert further opined that, due to the temperatures on the date of the incident, the pooled water near the area of plaintiff’s fall would have refrozen quickly, thereby creating the alleged dangerous condition … . Plaintiffs also submitted the deposition testimony of defendants’ employee, who confirmed that during wintertime, when the temperature can fluctuate above and below freezing, water could accumulate in the parking lot where plaintiff fell, and that the accumulated water could then freeze when the temperature went below freezing … . We conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised a triable issue of fact whether defendants assumed a duty of care to plaintiff by launching the force or instrument of harm. Kirschler v Village of N. Collins, 2024 NY Slip Op 03977, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here the municipality entered a contract with the school district to salt the parking lot and other areas. There was a question of fact whether the application of salt launched an instrument of harm (forming a pool of water which froze causing plaintiff’s fall) thereby creating a duty owed plaintiff.

 

, ,

A COUNTY RECYCLING TRUCK IS NOT ENGAGED IN ROAD WORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court in this traffic accident case, determined a county recycling truck was not engaged in the type of road work which is exempted from the rules of the road under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The related affirmative defense should have been dismissed:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) provides that the rules of the road do not apply to “persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” … . “[T]he law was intended to exempt from the rules of the road all teams and vehicles that ‘build highways, repair or maintain them, paint the pavement markings, remove the snow, sand the pavement and do similar work’ . . . Thus, the exemption turns on the nature of the work being performed (construction, repair, maintenance or similar work)—not on the nature of the vehicle performing the work” … .

Inasmuch as municipal refuse collection does not involve building, repairing, or maintaining highways, painting pavement markings, removing snow, sanding the pavement, or doing other similar work (see id.) and is “a task which one would anticipate could be accomplished while obeying the rules of the road”…, we conclude that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 does not apply to the facts presented here … . In reaching that conclusion, we note that the 2016 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 117-a (L 2016, ch 293, § 1)—which broadened the definition of “hazard vehicle” to include sani-vans and waste collection vehicles—did not broaden the scope of work that would constitute “engag[ing] in work on a highway” … .

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) further provides that section 1202 (a)—which regulates stopping, standing, and parking—does not apply to “hazard vehicles while actually engaged in hazardous operation on or adjacent to a highway” … . That provision, however, does not shield defendants from the allegations of negligence raised by plaintiff, i.e., violations of the right-of-way provisions of Article 26 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, including, inter alia, sections 1140, 1142 (a), and 1146 (b). Rouse v City of Syracuse Dept. of Pub. Works, 2024 NY Slip Op 03938, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: A county recycling truck is not engaged in road work and therefore is not exempt from the rules of the road under the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT FARM’S EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING FARM EQUIPMENT AT NIGHT WITHOUT LIGHTS WHEN PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER A NEGLIGENCE-PER-SE THEORY AND UNDER RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff collided with a manure spreader with no lights which was being towed by a tractor at night (a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law). In addition, the employer of the driver was deemed liable under respondeat superior:

“[A] defendant’s unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … and here, plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion by submitting evidence that the manure spreader was being operated on a public roadway, more than one-half hour after sunset, without “at least two lighted lamps on the rear, one on each side” in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (2) (a) (3), and without “signaling devices and reflectors” in violation of section 376 (a), which constitutes negligence per se … . …

“The general rule is that an employee acts within the scope of his [or her] employment when [the employee] is acting in furtherance of the duties owed to the employer and where the employer is or could be exercising some degree of control, directly or indirectly, over the employee’s activities” … . Here, plaintiff established that Sanchez-Rodriguez [the tractor driver] was “acting within the scope of his employment” at the time of the accident … . Durkee v Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2024 NY Slip Op 04002, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Driving farm equipment on a public road at night without lights constitutes negligence per se.

 

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