You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE; DEPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.

In an action against a detective and emergency medical technicians (EMT’s) alleging negligence during an emergency response, the Second Department determined a portion of the detective’s “internal affairs” file was discoverable as “material and necessary” and the deposition of two additional EMT’s should have been allowed because sufficient information about the response to the accident had not been provided by the EMT’s who had been deposed:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we find that two of the Internal Affairs records must be disclosed because they are relevant and material: (1) a recording or recordings of emergency dispatch calls referred to as “Seventh Precinct Band (Disc #1)” and (2) a “Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services (FRES)” recording. Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the disclosure of those two records (see Civil Rights Law § 50-a…). * * *

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the depositions of the EMTs or EMT aides who were present at the accident scene. In the first instance, a municipality has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for a deposition … . Similarly, “[a] corporate entity has the right to designate, in the first instance, the employee who shall be examined” … . In order to demonstrate that additional depositions are necessary, the movant must show “(1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case” … .

Here, only two EMTs who responded to the accident scene have been deposed thus far, and one of those EMTs is the … officer who allegedly failed to provide necessary first aid to the decedent. The testimony of these two emergency responders did not provide sufficient information regarding the actions taken by the various EMTs and ambulance workers who responded to the accident, and it is likely that other on-scene EMTs may possess relevant and material information. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to depose the other members of the ambulance company who were present at the accident scene … . Cea v Zimmerman, 2016 NY Slip Op 05968, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE; DEPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE)/POLICE OFFICERS (POLICE OFFICERS, PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, DEPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED)/NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENCE, PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE; DEPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED)

,

CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON RES IPSA LOQUITUR EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, was properly denied in this slip and fall case. Plaintiffs alleged defendant operated a sprinkler in December which caused the icy condition. The court explained the res ipsa loquitur doctrine can rarely be applied as a matter of law. Here the plaintiffs were unable to show that the injured plaintiff did not take a voluntary action which contributed to her injury:

In support of that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiffs relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. To rely on that doctrine, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the event is of the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality that caused the injury is within the defendants’ exclusive control; and (3) the injury is not the result of any voluntary action by the plaintiff” … . The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident … . Since the circumstantial evidence allows but does not require the jury to infer that the defendant was negligent, res ipsa loquitur evidence does not ordinarily or automatically entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment, even if the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence is unrefuted … . “[O]nly in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment” … . “That would happen only when the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Giantomaso v T. Weiss Realty Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05972, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON RES IPSA LOQUITUR EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON RES IPSA LOQUITUR EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON RES IPSA LOQUITUR EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)

,

SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT.

NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE.

The Second Department affirmed the grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case. The presence of a 1 1/2 inch deep hole in a sidewalk, larger than a silver dollar, with cracks radiating from the hole, was not sufficient to demonstrate the defect existed long enough to give defendants notice of it:

An employee of the restaurant in charge of its day-to-day operations testified at his deposition that he did not observe any defects … . Further, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that, although she had visited the restaurant at least 10 times in the year preceding her accident, she had never observed the alleged sidewalk defect prior to her accident. She described the defect which caused her to fall as cracks radiating from a hole 1½ inches deep, with a diameter larger than a silver dollar. That description, did not, by itself, indicate that the alleged defect was present for a sufficient length of time to give the defendants constructive notice of its existence. Gallway v Muintir, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05971, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT)/SLIP AND FALL (SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT)/SIDEWALKS (SIZE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE OF IT)

,

LANDOWNERS NEGATED BOTH POTENTIAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landowners were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common law negligence complaint brought by a worker injured constructing a gazebo in the landowners’ backyard. The court explained that the defendant had properly addressed and negated both theories of liability raised in the complaint, i.e. liability stemming from supervision of the work and liability stemming from a dangerous condition:

Landowners and general contractors have a common-law duty to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work … . To be held liable for common-law negligence for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work … . Where a plaintiff’s injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a defendant may be liable for common-law negligence if it ” either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” … . When an accident is alleged to involve defects in both the premises and the equipment used at the work site, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging common-law negligence is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards … . A defendant moving for summary judgment in such a case may prevail “only when the evidence exonerates it as a matter of law for all potential concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s accident and injury, and when no triable issue of fact is raised in opposition as to either relevant liability standard” … . Wejs v Heinbockel, 2016 NY Slip Op 05989, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (LANDOWNERS NEGATED BOTH POTENTIAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LANDOWNERS NEGATED BOTH POTENTIAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS OR WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this vehicle-collision case.  Credibility issues can not be resolved at the summary judgment stage:

It is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility … . Issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the court’s proper function on such a motion … . Thus, a motion for summary judgment “should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence including transcripts of the deposition testimony of both the plaintiff and the defendant driver. In those transcripts, the parties gave differing accounts of the manner in which the accident occurred, and issues of fact and credibility were presented which could not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. Given these issues, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Chimbo v Bolivar, 2016 NY Slip Op 05969, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS OR WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS OR WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS OR WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action against defendant property manager was properly denied. Defendant contracted with the board of a cooperative to manage the property. Plaintiff alleged defendant’s attempt to fix a minor leak caused water to damage his unit:

Regardless of which party had the burden of proof on the Espinal exception, the evidence submitted on the motion established that defendant attempted to fix the leak or leaks on several occasions and that the problem persisted and culminated in a flood of water “cascading” into plaintiff’s apartment. Plaintiff testified that the leak began on March 8, 2010, and lasted a few days. The leak started again in May 2010, and reoccurred in August 2010 and December 2010, and finally, the “big finale” of water cascading into plaintiff’s unit occurred in August 2011. Defendant attempted to fix the leaks on several occasions. Invoices dated March 10, April 13, September 28, and December 30, 2010 indicate that plumbing work was done in response to plaintiff’s complaints about water leaks. The notations in these invoices do not definitively establish whether or not defendant’s plumbers “launched a force or instrument of harm.” Thus, contrary to the dissent’s contention, the evidence raises an issue of fact as to whether defendant’s attempts to fix the water leak exacerbated the condition that led to the more serious leak that occurred in August 2011. Karydas v Ferrara-Ruurds, 2016 NY Slip Op 05941, 1st Dept 9-1-16

NEGLIGENCE (ESPINAL EXCEPTION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED)/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, ESPINAL EXCEPTION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED)/TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED).ESPINAL EXCEPTION( QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN A MINOR LEAK WAS REPAIRED)

IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined that, where a question of fact has been raised in an accident case about whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent, summary judgment finding defendant liable cannot be granted. Here, the plaintiff was alleged to have been injured while walking behind a sanitation truck which was backing up:

In this case, we are revisiting a vexing issue regarding comparative fault: whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, as a matter of law, that he or she is free from comparative fault. This issue has spawned conflicting decisions between the judicial departments, as well as inconsistent decisions by different panels within this Department. The precedents cited by the dissent have, in fact, acknowledged as much. After a review of the relevant precedents, we believe that the original approach adopted by this Department, as well as that followed in the [2nd] Department, which requires a plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of freedom from comparative fault in order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of liability, is the correct one. …

The issue that arises in the context of a summary judgment motion brought by a plaintiff on the issue of liability is whether, as the dissent posits, the motion should be granted and the issue of contributory negligence considered during the damages portion of the case or where the defendant raises an issue of fact with respect to the plaintiff’s negligence and the plaintiff fails to show the absence of negligence on his or her part, the motion must be denied and that issue considered during the liability phase of the trial. As discussed herein, the latter is the fairer, and therefore the proper way to proceed. Rodriguez v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05943, 1st Dept 9-1-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, (IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT LIABLE IN AN ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)

,

LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS.

In finding the out-of-possession landlord was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case, the Second Department noted that the landlord’s reservation of a right to enter the property to inspect and make repairs does not impose a duty to make repairs. The plaintiff alleged she slipped on ice in the workplace parking lot:

Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached a common-law duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that it was an out-of-possession landlord and, thus, had no duty to perform repairs or remove snow and ice from the premises … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had a duty to remove snow or ice under statute or regulation, the terms of the lease, or a course of conduct … . A landlord’s reservation of the right to enter property to inspect and make repairs does not in itself give rise to a duty to make repairs … . Keum Ok Han v Kemp, Pin & Ski, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05908, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS)/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS)

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall case should have been dismissed. Although plaintiff alleged she slipped on a marble floor, she did not know the cause of her fall:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . Scimone v LT Propco, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05915, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER A VIDEOTAPE OF THE EVENT AT WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DURING THE JURY TRIAL.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint during trial, determined the plaintiff’s failure to turn over a videotape of the event during which plaintiff allegedly tripped on a cord and fell did not justify dismissing the complaint. On the third day of the trial plaintiff testified she had found a videotape of the event which had been misplaced. The videotape did not show the trip and fall, but allegedly did show the cord which caused the fall:

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint due to plaintiff’s belated disclosure of a video. Although CPLR 3101(i) requires disclosure of “any films, photographs, video tapes or audio tapes” of a party upon demand … , there was insufficient evidence of willful or contumacious conduct on plaintiff’s part, or prejudice to [defendant], to warrant the dismissal of her complaint in the midst of the jury trial ,,,, even if the dismissal was without prejudice.

There was no court order directing plaintiff to produce the video, and [defendant’s] discovery demands only requested that she produce photographs. Furthermore, plaintiff, who claimed to have misplaced the video, did not seek to introduce the edited video, which did not show her fall, into evidence at trial, and was willing to consent to its preclusion, the striking of her testimony concerning its existence, and a curative instruction, even though she believed the video to be favorable to her because it showed a cord across the floor and one of [defendant’s] principals standing in the vicinity. Fox v Grand Slam Banquet Hall, 2016 NY Slip Op 05897, 1st Dept 8-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER A VIDEOTAPE OF THE EVENT AT WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DURING THE JURY TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CIVIL, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER A VIDEOTAPE OF THE EVENT AT WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DURING THE JURY TRIAL)

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