You are here: / Negligence
, ,

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF EXCUSE.

The Second Department determined a late notice of claim was properly allowed despite the absence of an excuse for the delay in serving the notice. The claim alleged negligence during an emergency cesarean birth at defendant facility. Because the medical records memorialized the event, the delay caused no prejudice to the defendant:

The petitioner established that the appellant had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim by virtue of its possession of the infant's medical records, which detail her delivery and post-natal care, and established that the delay in serving the notice of claim would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining its defense on the merits. Under those circumstances, the fact that the petitioner could not show a reasonable excuse for the delay does not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the appellant … . Matter of Benjamin v Nassau Health Care Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 02989, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN SLIP AND FALL AREA LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined defendants' (appellants') motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly denied because the defendants failed to demonstrate when the area was last cleaned or inspected:

Here, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that they did not have constructive notice of any hazardous condition. Although the appellants presented evidence that they neither created nor had actual notice of the alleged condition, they failed to demonstrate that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition, as they failed to tender any evidence establishing when the subject area was last inspected prior to the plaintiff's alleged accident … . James v Orion Condo-350 W. 42nd St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02964, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


, ,

THE CITY (NYC) HAD ENTERED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNING THE REPAIR OF A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK, DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined defendant property owners, the Bilellos, were entitled to contribution from the city (NYC), based upon a special relationship with the city, in a sidewalk slip and fall case. Tree roots had raised the sidewalk in front of the Bilellos property. The city issued a notice of violation to the Bilellos and the Bilellos were told by the city not to touch the sidewalk until a plan for repair was developed by the city. The Department of Forestry never got in touch with the Bilellos and plaintiff tripped and fell over the defect 11 months after the Bilellos' last communication from the city:

Here, it is undisputed that the City did not owe a direct duty of care to the plaintiff, because the 2003 enactment of Administrative Code of City New York 7-210 shifted liability for injuries arising from sidewalk defects from the City to the abutting property owner … . However, if the City owed an independent, special duty to the Bilellos, it may be held liable “for the portion of the damage attributable to [its] negligence, despite the fact that the duty violated was not one owing directly to the injured person” … . “Such a duty is found when a special relationship exists between the municipality and an individual or class of persons warranting the imposition of a duty to use reasonable care for those persons' benefit” … . To establish the existence of a special relationship based on a municipality's voluntary assumption of a duty, the party asserting the relationship has a heavy burden to prove the following elements: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the party; and (4) the party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking … . Stanciu v Bilello, 2016 NY Slip Op 02802, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


, ,

RADIOLOGIST WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEFORMITY WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM A FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE A FRACTURE. 

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants in a medical malpractice action were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them. The complaint alleged defendant radiologist failed to diagnose a fractured finger, which was the proximate cause of a deformity. In opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff offered an affidavit from a radiologist, Dr. Tantleff, who was qualified to evaluate the alleged failed diagnosis, but was not qualified to find the failed diagnosis was the proximate cause of the deformity (an orthopedic matter). Therefore the defendants were entitled to summary judgment:

Here, Dr. Tantleff's opinion as to proximate cause was related to the specialty of orthopedics, but Dr. Tantleff failed to state any basis on which he could be found competent to opine in that area. Therefore he was not qualified to render an opinion that Fong's failure to diagnose the plaintiff's nondisplaced fracture proximately caused the alleged orthopedic injuries … . Moreover, his assertion was speculative, as he cited to no record evidence to support his opinion that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were due to the undiagnosed fracture … . Martinez v Quintana, 2016 NY Slip Op 02782, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE-WAY STREET WHEN HE WAS STRUCK DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's complaint should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a forklift as he was riding his bicycle the wrong way on a one-way street. Although plaintiff was negligent, the defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the forklift operator was free from negligence:

While the plaintiff was negligent in traveling the wrong way on a one-way street (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1127[a]; 1231, 1234[a]), there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from fault in the happening of the accident … . Thus, the fact that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle in the wrong direction on a one-way street would not preclude a finding that negligence by the defendant's employee contributed to the accident … .

Here, the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing the forklift operator's freedom from fault in the happening of this accident as a matter of law … . The papers the defendant submitted in support of its motion demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the forklift operator failed to exercise due care before proceeding from the driveway onto the street (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143, 1146[a]; 1173…). Nunez v Olympic Fence & Railing Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02791, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


DEPRESSED DRAIN NEAR CONDOMINIUM ENTRANCE WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.

The Second Department determined that a depressed drain near the entrance to a condominium was a non-actionable trivial defect:

 

“Generally, whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury unless the defect is trivial as a matter of law” … . “[I]njuries resulting from trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip are not actionable” … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place, and circumstance of the injury” … .

“[T]here is no minimal dimension test' or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … . “[G]ranting summary judgment to a defendant based exclusively on the dimension[s] of the . . . defect is unacceptable'” … . Thus, “a holding of triviality [is] to be based on all the specific facts and circumstances of the case, not size alone” … .

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . Only once the defendant meets its burden, will the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact … . Maldonado v 2121 Shore Condominium, 2016 NY Slip Op 02780, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


SIDEWALK RISE OF A LITTLE OVER AN INCH WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.

 

The Second Department determined a sidewalk rise of slightly more than an inch was a non-actionable trivial defect:

Here, the owners and the lessees submitted … evidence to establish that the defect at issue was, at most, a rise of slightly more than one inch in a portion of the sidewalk and that neither the alleged defect nor the surrounding circumstances increased the risk to her … . [Plaintiff] testified at her deposition that she had traversed the sidewalk on numerous previous occasions without incident before the incident at issue. She testified that it was a sunny day and there were no crowds, construction, or other obstructions to block her view of the sidewalk as she traversed it. Thus, through her testimony, the owners and the lessees established that the alleged defect was not only small in size, but was also in a well-illuminated location that [plaintiff] had previously traversed on numerous occasions and that nothing in the area obstructed her view of the location and the alleged defect. Chee v DiPaolo, 2016 NY Slip Op 02777, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE BASKETBALL COURT.

The First Department determined plaintiff assumed the risk of injury caused by an open and obvious defect in an outdoor basketball court:

… [P]laintiff, an experienced basketball player, voluntarily chose to play basketball on an outdoor court that had an open and obvious defect on its surface … . The crack and/or hole in the basketball court's surface that allegedly caused plaintiff's injury was one of the risks he assumed when he decided to play basketball on the court, which was located in a public park owned and maintained by defendants … . The photographs of the defect and plaintiff's testimony that nothing was blocking the defect before he stepped on it demonstrate that the defect was open and obvious … . Wallace v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 02763, 1st Dept 4-12-16


FACT THAT OBJECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANT OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The First Department determent the fact that the object over which plaintiff tripped and fell was “open and obvious” did not relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law. Plaintiff tripped over a wheeled cart which had been in an aisle of defendant's discount store. A question of fact remained whether defendant maintained the store in a reasonably safe condition. That plaintiff saw the cart was relevant to plaintiff's comparative negligence:

Although plaintiff admitted that she saw the pulley bag before she tripped, so that it was an “open and obvious” condition, defendant failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled its broad obligation to maintain the store in a reasonably safe condition … . An issue of fact exists as to whether the placement of the pulley bag with its protruding metal stand, along with the other merchandise cluttering the store's aisles, was an inherently dangerous condition that presented a tripping hazard … . That plaintiff saw the bag before tripping does not require dismissal of the complaint, but is relevant to the issue of her comparative negligence … . Johnson-Glover v Fu Jun Hao Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02748, 1st Dept 4-12-16


QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DEFENSE APPLIED TO A REAR-END COLLISION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the emergency defense applied in a rear-end collision. The defendant, in an affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, alleged an unidentified car suddenly turned into his path causing him to swerve and ultimately strike the back of plaintiff’s car. The dissent argued the accident could only have occurred because of defendant’s negligence:

We find that plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima facie showing of their entitlement to partial summary judgment on liability. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of the rear driver … . Similarly, a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a), which obligates drivers to maintain safe distances between their cars and cars in front of them, and be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages, is prima facie evidence of negligence … .

Defendants opposed, arguing that summary judgment was not warranted, because they had a valid emergency doctrine defense, which would preclude a summary finding of liability against them. The emergency doctrine recognizes that “when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context,” provided the actor had not created the emergency … . Maisonet v Roman, 2016 NY Slip Op 02725, 1st Dept 4-7-16

 

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