You are here: / Negligence

WATER ON LOCKER ROOM FLOOR WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO USE OF THE AREA, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged he slipped on water in a locker room in the vicinity of a swimming pool and showers. The majority rejected the argument that water in the locker room was necessarily incidental to the use of the locker room (the dissent’s argument):

[D]efendant cannot obtain summary judgment here by relying on the cases cited by the dissent, in which this Court dismissed personal injury claims arising out of slipping on water in gyms based on the reasoning that “water was necessarily incidental to the use of the area” (Noboa-Jaquez v Town Sports Intl., LLC, 138 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2016]; Dove v Manhattan Plaza Health Club, 113 AD3d 455 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 24 NY3d 901 [2014]). In Dove, the plaintiff “slipped and fell on water located on the tile floor around the indoor pool of defendants’ health club,” prompting this Court to observe that “the presence of such water was necessarily incidental’ to the use of the pool” … . In Noboa-Jaquez, the plaintiff slipped on the tiled floor in the area of the gym’s showers, and this Court applied the same reasoning as in Dove to hold that “[t]he mere presence of water on a tiled floor adjacent to the gym’s showers cannot impart liability, particularly since water was necessarily incidental to the use of the area” … . Neither of those holdings stands for the broader proposition that any water on a tiled floor anywhere in a locker room must preclude a claim for negligence because water is “necessarily incidental” to the entire locker room’s intended use. From the evidence before us, it does not appear that plaintiff was in the shower area, and he had clearly left the pool area. Grossman v TCR, 2016 NY Slip Op 06114, 1st Dept 9-21-16

NEGLIGENCE (WATER ON LOCKER ROOM FLOOR WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO USE OF THE AREA, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (WATER ON LOCKER ROOM FLOOR WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO USE OF THE AREA, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged he tripped over the upturned corner of a rug:

The doorman on duty testified that he observed the carpet, used when there was inclement weather, in its usual location between the door and the elevator less than an hour before the accident and that he did not notice any part of the carpet that was not lying perfectly flat in the area of the elevators … . He also testified that he did not remember having ever seen a carpet whose corners were not lying flat to the floor at any time during January 2011. Nor did he ever see anyone use tape to keep the corners of the carpet down. Defendants also pointed to plaintiff’s testimony that the first time he saw a portion of the carpet raised was when the doorman helped him after he fell … . Reeves v 1700 First Ave. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06050, 1st Dept 9-15-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined there was a question of fact whether a taxi driver (Rahman) breached a duty to a pedestrian (O’Connor) by positioning the cab partially in a traffic lane such that the view of drivers approaching from the rear was obstructed. The pedestrian, who had just gotten out of the cab, was struck by another cab (driven by Aidoo) when he attempted to cross the road. Any breach related to letting the passenger/pedestrian off too far from the curb was not the proximate cause of the injuries:

Rahman’s taxicab, which was stopped at least partially in the right travel lane, may have obscured Aidoo’s view of O’Connor as O’Connor began to cross the street. This raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Rahman’s positioning of his car at least partially in a travel lane was a violation of the traffic rules of the City of New York (see 34 RCNY 4-08[e]), and whether that violation was a proximate cause of the collision and of O’Connor’s injuries and death … .

Contrary to the position taken by our dissenting colleague, the duty of a common carrier to safely discharge a passenger is not the sole basis asserted for liability in this action. The asserted liability of Rahman does not depend on whether he breached his duty to O’Connor as his passenger. Rahman’s alleged breach of that duty, by letting O’Connor off too far from the curb, did not proximately cause O’Connor’s injuries, which resulted from his attempt to cross the street …  . Instead, liability arises, if at all, from Rahman’s breach of duty to O’Connor as a pedestrian by positioning his cab partially in a traffic lane, thereby obstructing the view of drivers approaching from the rear … . O’Connor v Ronnie Cab Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05980, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR)/PEDESTRIANS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR)/TAXICABS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR)

, ,

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)

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