You are here: / Negligence
,

INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL.

The First Department determined, in this declaratory judgment action, the insurer has the duty to defend the city in this slip and fall case. The fact that information which is outside the four corners of the complaint may indicate the insurer does not have the duty to defend must be raised in a summary judgment motion or at trial:

Under the circumstances presented, the City’s cross motion is granted to the extent of declaring that plaintiff is obligated to defend it in the underlying litigation. The duty of an insurer to provide a defense for its insured is “exceedingly broad,” arising “whenever the allegations of the complaint suggest. . . a reasonable possibility of coverage” … . Accordingly, “a liability insurer has a duty to defend its insured in a pending lawsuit if the pleadings allege a covered occurrence,” even if “facts outside the four corners of those pleadings indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered” … . Thus, an insurer may be contractually bound to defend “even though it may not ultimately be bound to pay, either because its insured is not factually or legally liable or because the occurrence is later proven to be outside the policy’s coverage” … .

Here, the four corners of the complaint in the underlying action place the allegations squarely within the responsibilities of plaintiff’s insured, triggering the duty to defend. Plaintiff’s primary argument, that the accident was not within its insured’s area of responsibility, is properly made to Supreme Court in a motion for summary judgment dismissing Bari’s complaint or at trial and cannot be resolved by this Court on a motion seeking declaratory relief… . Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v GTJ Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04106, 1st Dept 5-26-16

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL)/NEGLIGENCE (INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL)

,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner could not be held liable for the condition of a NYC-owned tree well within the abutting sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a) places the duty to maintain a sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition on the owner of the property abutting the sidewalk, and provides for civil liability for injuries proximately caused by the failure to so maintain the sidewalk. However, the statute does not extend that duty of maintenance to City-owned tree wells or provide for civil liability for injuries occurring in City-owned tree wells … . Thus, liability may be imposed on the abutting landowner in such instances only where she or he has “affirmatively created the dangerous condition, negligently made repairs to the area, [or] caused the dangerous condition to occur through a special use of that area” … . Gibbons v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 04019, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK)/SLIP AND FALL (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK)/SIDEWALKS (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK)/TREE WELLS (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR CONDITION OF CITY OWNED TREE WELL WITHIN SIDEWALK)

, , ,

INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against defendant school district should have been denied. Although infancy tolls the one-year-ninety-days statute of limitations, it does not toll the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim. The motion for leave to file a late notice was not made until more than four years after the expiration of the 90-day filing period:

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant had “acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” within 90 days of the accident or a reasonable time thereafter (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The school's principal prepared an accident claim form on the day of the accident, and the infant plaintiff's parents completed the medical claim portion of that form a couple of weeks after the accident. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, this form, which merely indicated that the infant plaintiff lost his left front tooth and part of his right front tooth when he hit his mouth on the gymnasium floor in an attempt to “duck from a ball” during physical education class, did not establish that the defendant had timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claims that it was negligent in supervising the students, in failing to provide a safe play area, and in allowing the infant plaintiff to engage in an inappropriate activity … . Accordingly, the defendant had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligent supervision and alleged unsafe condition of the gymnasium floor … . Horn v Bellmore Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 04021, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (INFANCY DOES NOT TOLL 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL.

The Second Department determined plaintiff-student assumed the risk of being struck by a baseball during his high-school team’s practice:

“The assumption of risk doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks'” … . “An educational institution organizing a team sporting activity must exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect student athletes voluntarily participating in organized athletics from unassumed, concealed, or enhanced risks” … . “Defendant’s duty under such circumstances is a duty to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . “[I]t is not necessary to the application of the doctrine that the injured plaintiff may have foreseen the exact manner in which the injury occurred so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results'” … . Kaminer v Jericho Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 04024, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL)/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL)

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case was properly granted, despite defendant's (McCrowell's) claim plaintiff stopped 150 feet from the car in front:

Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting McCrowell's deposition testimony, the injured plaintiff's deposition testimony, and the injured plaintiff's affidavit, which demonstrated that the injured plaintiff's vehicle was stopped in heavy traffic when it was struck in the rear by the appellants' vehicle … .

In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. McCrowell's statement in his affidavit that the injured plaintiff brought his vehicle to a stop at least 150 feet behind the stopped vehicle in front of him did not adequately rebut the inference of negligence given McCrowell's deposition testimony that he was able to bring his vehicle to a stop behind the injured plaintiff's vehicle on two occasions prior to the accident in heavy stop-and-go traffic without incident during the one minute that the injured plaintiff was traveling in front of McCrowell's vehicle … . Even if the injured plaintiff's vehicle came to a sudden stop, “vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead” … . Melendez v McCrowell, 2016 NY Slip Op 04028, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/REAR-END COLLISION (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE)

,

RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION.

The First Department, applying contract interpretation principles to a release, determined the release, narrowly interpreted by its precise terms, applied to the Cabrini Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, but did not apply to a private attending physician (Nicolescu) at Cabrini:

Assuming arguendo that defendant Nicolescu, a private attending physician at Cabrini, could be considered a “staff” member of Cabrini, the release is unambiguously limited only to “causes of action” that plaintiffs had against Cabrini, and does not release any other tortfeasors not expressly named therein from liability for causes of action asserted against them (General Obligations Law § 15-108[a]…). Interpreting the release as urged by defendant Nicolescu to release him from liability for causes of action asserted against him individually would return to the common law rule in effect before enactment of General Obligations Law § 15-108(a), when general releases were “a trap for the average man who quite reasonably assumes that settling his claim with one person does not have any effect on his rights against others with whom he did not deal” … . Linn v New York Downtown Hosp., 2016 NY Slip Op 03992, 1st Dept 5-24-16

NEGLIGENCE (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION)/CONTRACT LAW (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION) RELEASES (RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT THE INSTITUTION)

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF PUDDLE CREATED A CREDIBILITY ISSUE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHICH COULD NOT BE RESOLVED WITHOUT TRIAL.

The First Department determined conflicting evidence in this slip and fall case, submitted by defendants in support of summary judgment, created an issue of fact for trial:

Defendants' employees both testified that the building's janitorial schedule required that the stairs where plaintiff's fall occurred be cleaned before the time of the accident, and that they personally inspected the stairs several times on the morning of the accident, finding no such puddle at any time. In contrast, however, plaintiff's testimony, which was submitted by defendants, was that at nearly the same time that defendants' employees claim to have found the stairs urine-free, she observed a puddle of urine in the same spot where she would later fall. Furthermore, plaintiff's daughter stated that she observed a puddle of urine in the same spot two hours before the accident, which was several hours after plaintiff claimed to have seen the puddle … . Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate because there remain issues of fact as to the credibility of defendants' employees and whether the urine puddle was extant on the stairs for six hours prior to plaintiff's accident without remediation by defendants. Mendoza v Fordham-Bedford Hous. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 03997, 3rd Dept 5-24-16

NEGLIGENCE (CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF PUDDLE CREATED A CREDIBILITY ISSUE IN THIS SLOP AND FALL CASE WHICH COULD NOT BE RESOLVED WITHOUT TRIAL)/SLIP AND FALL (CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF PUDDLE CREATED A CREDIBILITY ISSUE IN THIS SLOP AND FALL CASE WHICH COULD NOT BE RESOLVED WITHOUT TRIAL)

, , ,

DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND WERE ENTITLED TO BOTH QUALIFIED AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY.

The Second Department determined defendants' motion to set aside the plaintiff's verdict, in a case alleging use of excessive force by police officers, should have been granted. Plaintiff, who was mentally ill, punched a police officer who approached him and ran up some stairs. When the police attempted to restrain him, he and the officers fell down the stairs. The Second Department held the facts did not support a finding of excessive force. The court further held the officers did not clearly violate plaintiff's statutory or constitutional rights and were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. In addition, the Second Department found the officers were performing a discretionary, not ministerial function, and were therefore entitled to government function immunity, requiring dismissal of the negligence cause of action. On the topic of qualified immunity, the Second Department wrote:

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” … . While the doctrine does not require “a case directly on point, . . . existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate” … . The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established … . “This inquiry must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition” … . “Such specificity is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recognized that it is sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine, here excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts” … . “This exacting standard gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments' by protect[ing] all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law'” … . Davila v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03846, 2nd Dept 5-18-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE, DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (POLICE, DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY)/CIVIL RIGHTS (POLICE, EXCESSIVE FORCE, DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY)/QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (POLICE, DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY)/GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY (POLICE, DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY)/NEGLIGENCE (POLICE, DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IMMUNITY)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.

The Second Department determined defendant abutting property owner did not demonstrate he owed no duty to the trip and fall plaintiff who allegedly fell over a piece of rebar which was on the sidewalk. The court explained the duty of abutting property owners under the New York City code:

…[L]ability may be imposed on the abutting landowner when the abutting landowner … violated a statute or ordinance imposing liability on the abutting landowner for failing to maintain the sidewalk … .

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner” … . …

Administrative Code section 7-210(a) states that “[i]t shall be the duty of the owner of the real property abutting any sidewalk . . . to maintain such sidewalk in an reasonably safe condition.” Administrative Code section 7-210(b) states that “[f]ailure to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition shall include, but not be limited to . . . the negligent failure to remove snow, ice, dirt or other material from the sidewalk” … . Metzker v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03724, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK)

, ,

DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's toxic tort action on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff alleged injury caused by mold in a building owned by defendant:

… [D]efendant was required to show, at a minimum, that plaintiff's alleged exposure to a toxic substance did not occur within three years of the commencement of the action … . If defendant exposed or continued to expose plaintiff to a toxic substance within three years of the commencement of the action, plaintiff could not have discovered any resulting injuries from such exposure at a time that would be barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Given that a plaintiff cannot discover the injurious effects of exposure to a toxic substance prior to that exposure occurring, and considering defendant's concession that plaintiff continued to be exposed to the mold at a time less than three years prior to the commencement of the action, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds.

Turning to the allegedly injurious exposure taking place more than three years prior to the commencement of the action, we find that defendant did not prove as a matter of law that plaintiff should have discovered his allergy and asthma conditions at a time that is barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Although plaintiff exhibited some symptoms, including skin and eye irritation and tightness in the throat, in the spring and summer of 2002, plaintiff also explained that such symptoms ceased when he would leave the building at the end of his shifts. Further, plaintiff averred that he did not seek medical treatment for these symptoms, miss work as a result of the symptoms or file a workers' compensation claim until late October 2002. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the symptoms that plaintiff exhibited more than three years prior to the commencement of the action were too intermittent and inconsequential to trigger the running of the statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 214-c (2) … . Malone v Court W. Developers, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03571, 3rd Dept 5-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/TOXIC TORTS (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)

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