You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE FROM BEHIND FLED THE SCENE BUT WAS IDENTIFIED BY A LICENSE PLATE FOUND AT THE SCENE; DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE BUT DENIED OPERATING IT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THAT ALLEGATION DID NOT OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF PERMISSIVE USE UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end traffic-accident case, determined defendant’s allegation he was not driving his vehicle at the time of the accident did not overcome the presumption of permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388(1). The vehicle which struck plaintiffs’ stopped vehicle fled the scene. But defendant admitted the license plate found at the scene was from his vehicle:

The plaintiff Manu Kanwar was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff Mahesh Kashyap when it was struck in the rear by another vehicle. Although the rear vehicle fled the scene, it allegedly was identified by its license plate, which had fallen off that vehicle at the accident scene. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. In his answer, the defendant, inter alia, admitted to owning a vehicle bearing the license plate number identified in the complaint, asserted an affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiffs were comparatively at fault, and asserted a counterclaim against Kashyap. * * *

The plaintiffs’ affidavits demonstrated, inter alia, that Kashyap’s vehicle was stopped for the traffic condition ahead when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle and that the defendant, as the owner of the vehicle, was negligent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 388, 1129[a] …). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In his affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, the defendant merely averred that he was not operating his vehicle at the time of the accident. However, this was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of permissive use under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1)… , and it was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his vehicle was not involved in the accident … . Kashyap v Dasilva, 2024 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant acknowledged ownership of the vehicle which struck plaintiff’s stopped vehicle from behind and left the scene, but denied he was operating it at the time of the accident. That denial did not overcome the presumption that whoever was driving the vehicle was doing so with the owner’s permission (Vehicle and Traffic Law 388). Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

 

, , ,

PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT BEFORE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the motion court should have first considered plaintiff’s (decedent’s) motion to strike defendants’ answer (for spoliation of evidence) before considering defendants’ motion for summary judgment (which was granted). Decedent alleged there was video footage showing the slip and fall which was overwritten 72 hours after the fall:

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126” … . The Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction would be imposed for spoliation of evidence … . “The sanction of dismissal of a pleading may be imposed even absent willful and contumacious conduct if a party has been so prejudiced that dismissal is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness” …  “However, a less severe sanction or no sanction is appropriate where the missing evidence does not deprive the moving party of the ability to establish his or her case or defense” … .

A defendant whose answer is stricken is “deemed to admit all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability” … , and summary judgment is warranted in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability upon the appropriate motion … .

Here, since the decedent’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer or, in the alternative, for an adverse inference instruction at trial for spoliation of evidence sought sanctions that would impact the defendants’ ability to establish, prima facie, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court should have considered the merits of the decedent’s motion before rendering a determination on the issue of liability on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them … . Hudesman v Dawson Holding Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 04307, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Where a plaintiff’s motion can affect a defendant’s ability to defend an action (here a motion to strike the answer for spoliation of evidence), that motion should be considered first, before considering a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

 

, , ,

THE MOTION COURT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE CROSS-CLAIMS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should have considered the deposition transcripts, which were certified but unsigned, and should have granted defendant driver’s (Jara Mejia’s) motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the cross-claims. Jara Mejia’s car was stopped when it was struck from behind:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . In support of his motion, Jara Mejia submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony and transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs, Tsering, and Cruz Arce. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, Jara Mejia’s unsigned but certified deposition transcript was admissible, “since the transcript was submitted by the party deponent himself and, therefore, was adopted as accurate by the deponent” … . In addition, while the remaining deposition transcripts were also unsigned, they were certified and their accuracy was not challenged … . Thus, the deposition transcripts were admissible and should have been considered by the court on Jara Mejia’s motion. Gironza v Macedonio, 2024 NY Slip Op 04306, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when submitted by the party deponent himself.

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when their accuracy is not challenged.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PETITIONER-BUS-DRIVER’S ACCIDENT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER’S ACCIDENT, INJURIES OR THE FACTS UNDERLYING HER THEORY OF LIABILITY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent. determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the city should not have been granted. Although petitioner demonstrated the city had timely knowledge of the existence of the pothole which allegedly caused petitioner-bus-driver’s injury, petitioner did not demonstrate the city had timely knowledge of her accident, injuries or the facts underlying her theory of liability:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the appellants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter … . “‘Actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim means knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the [proposed] notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves'” … . “Unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions that the municipality acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim through the contents of reports and other documentation are insufficient” … .

Here, although the petitioner’s submission of photographs and evidence that the defect was repaired after the accident may have demonstrated that the appellants had actual knowledge of the defect, actual knowledge of a defect is not tantamount to actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim where, as here, the record did not establish that the appellants were aware of the petitioner’s accident, her injuries, and the facts underlying her theory of liability … . Matter of Ippolito v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 04265, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Here petitioner’s inability to demonstrate the city had timely knowledge of her accident, injuries or the facts underlying her theory of liability supported denial of her petition for leave to file a late notice of claim. The fact that the city had timely knowledge of the road defect which allegedly caused petitioner’s accident was not enough.

 

, , ,

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.​

 

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