You are here: / Negligence
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OFFICER DEMONSTRATED RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT.

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in an action stemming from a high-speed police pursuit was properly denied. Before the pursued car went through a red light and collided with plaintiff’s decedent, there were several similar close calls as the pursuit proceeded through a residential neighborhood:

” The manner in which a police officer operated his or her vehicle in responding to an emergency may form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party if the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . ” The reckless disregard’ standard requires proof that the officer intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow'” … .

In this case, the County defendants, in moving for summary judgment, failed to establish, prima facie, that [the officer] did not act in reckless disregard for the safety of others in commencing, conducting, or failing to terminate the high-speed pursuit of [the] vehicle … . Among other things, there are triable issues of fact as to what occurred just moments before the accident and as to whether [the officer] pursued [the vehicle] in a manner that prevented [the pursued driver] from stopping for fear of a collision with [the officer’s] police vehicle. Furthermore, considering the testimony indicating that the pursuit was conducted at high speeds in a residential neighborhood, that [the pursued driver] disobeyed several traffic control devices, and that collisions with other cars at earlier intersections were narrowly avoided, there are triable issues of fact as to whether [the officer] should have terminated the pursuit. … . Foster v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2016 NY Slip Op 01639, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)/POLICE (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW  (POLICE HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT, QUESTION OF FACT RE: RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY)

,

CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.

In a legal malpractice action, plaintiffs alleged their trial attorneys in the personal injury action failed to inform them about a $12 million settlement offer made shortly before the $3.7 million verdict. Defendants-attorneys alleged the plaintiffs were informed of the offer, which was provided in writing, and plaintiffs rejected it. During the deposition of plaintiff-wife (Mrs. Doviak), she was handed the written offer. The plaintiffs argued that handing the offer to Mrs. Doviak constituted spoliation of evidence, because the document could have been tested for fingerprints, and the absence of her fingerprints would have demonstrated she was never provided with the written offer during the trial. The Second Department determined the criteria for spoliation of evidence had not been met:

“The party requesting sanctions for spoliation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to prove its claim or defense” … . “[T]he Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence” and may, “under appropriate circumstances, impose a sanction even if the destruction occurred through negligence rather than wilfulness, and even if the evidence was destroyed before the spoliator became a party, provided the spoliator was on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation” … . This Court will substitute its judgment for that of the Supreme Court only if that court’s discretion was improvidently exercised … .

Here, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants intentionally or negligently destroyed fingerprint evidence which was critical to their case. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they requested that the offer document be tested for fingerprints, or that it be preserved for forensic testing prior to Mrs. Doviak’s deposition, or otherwise informed the defendants of their desire to conduct fingerprint analysis. The plaintiffs’ boilerplate demand during discovery that they be permitted to examine original documents on request does not satisfy this requirement, nor is it reasonable to contend that the defendants should have anticipated the plaintiffs’ desire for forensic testing of the offer document … . Thus, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, in handing the original document to Mrs. Doviak at her deposition, the defendants intentionally or negligently destroyed potential forensic evidence … . In any event, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that, by failing to preserve the offer document for forensic testing, the defendants had fatally compromised the plaintiffs’ ability to prove their claims … . Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 01636, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

NEGLIGENCE (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)/EVIDENCE (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)/SPOLIATION (CRITERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET)

, ,

ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE FOR BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined an architect, Perkins, could be sued for both breach of contract and negligence in a lawsuit stemming from the settling of a building and other structures in the vicinity of new construction. The court also concluded the plaintiff city, although not mentioned in the contract with the architect, had raised a question of fact whether the city was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. With respect to when a professional-party to a contract can be liable in tort, the court wrote:

Perkins, as architect, may be subject to tort liability based on a failure to exercise due care in the performance of its duties. In making this determination, the court is to look at the nature of the injury and whether the plaintiff is merely seeking the benefit of its agreement. Where the plaintiff is merely seeking the benefit of its agreement, it is limited to a contract claim … .

Where, however, “the particular project . . . is so affected with the public interest that the failure to perform competently can have catastrophic consequences,” a professional may be subject to tort liability as well … . Indeed, “[t]his is one of the most significant elements in determining whether the nature of the type of services rendered gives rise to a duty of reasonable care independent of the contract itself” (… citing Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 553 [1992]). As the Court explained in Sommer, “[I]t is policy, not the parties' contract, that gives rise to a duty of care” … . The “nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” are also considered … .

Here, there is a factual question whether Perkins assumed an independent legal duty as an architect to perform its work in a manner consistent with the generally accepted standard of professional care in its industry. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. v Samson Constr. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01546, 1st Dept 3-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)/CONTRACT LAW (ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)/ARCHITECTS (ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)

SIDEWALK DEFECT TOO TRIVIAL TO BE ACTIONABLE.

The Third Department determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly granted.  Defendant's demonstrated the defect in the sidewalk was trivial and the plaintiff's expert did not identify any relevant code, standard, or accepted-practice violation:

A property owner “'may not be cast in damages for negligent maintenance by reason of trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance, as a consequence of which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his [or her] toes, or trip over a raised projection'” … . “Whether a defect is so trivial to preclude liability depends on the particular facts of each case and requires consideration of such relevant factors as the dimensions of the alleged defect and the circumstances surrounding the injury, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance of the defect as well as the time, place and circumstances of the injury” … .

* * * Photographs of the portion of the sidewalk at issue demonstrate that it is relatively smooth and show only a slight height differential between the adjacent slabs of concrete, which were of different shades. Such evidence satisfied defendant's initial burden of making a prima facie showing that any alleged defect in the sidewalk was too trivial to be actionable … . Chirumbolo v 78 Exch. St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01537, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SIDEWALK DEFECT TOO TRIVIAL TO BE ACTIONABLE)

RIDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when thrown from a horse during a recreational ride at defendant’s stable. Plaintiff was deemed to have assumed the risk of being thrown from the horse:

The risk of a horse acting in an unintended manner resulting in the rider being thrown is a risk inherent in the sport of horseback riding … . There is no evidence that defendant stable was reckless, nor were there any concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . To the extent plaintiffs’ expert opined otherwise, such opinion was conclusory, since it did not rely on any rules, regulations, laws or industry standards, and therefore, it fails to raise a triable issue of fact … . Blumenthal v Bronx Equestrian Ctr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01545, 1st Dept 3-3-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (RIDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (RIDER ASSUMED RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE)/HORSES (RIDER ASSUMED RISK OF BEING THROWN FROM A HORSE)

,

ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT WAS NOT BASED ON OFFICER’S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE; REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department determined a new trial was necessary in a pedestrian-accident case because the police report (admitted in evidence included) included a diagram of the accident scene which was not based on the police officer's personal observation:

 

Information in a police accident report is “admissible as a business record so long as the report is made based upon the officer's personal observations and while carrying out police duties” … . Conversely, information in a police accident report is inadmissible where the information came from witnesses not engaged in the police business in the course of which the memorandum was made, and the information does not qualify under some other hearsay exception … . Here, the diagram contained in the police accident report was not derived from the personal observations of the police officer, who did not witness the subject accident … . In addition, there was insufficient evidence as to the source of the information used to prepare the diagram, whether that person was under a business duty to supply it, or whether some other hearsay exception would render the diagram admissible. The diagram therefore should not have been admitted … . Wynn v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01484, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

NEGLIGENCE (ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT NOT BASED ON OFFICER'S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT NOT BASED ON OFFICER'S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)/HEEARSAY (NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT NOT BASED ON OFFICER'S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED)

GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PARTICULAR CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped on water which had dripped from the ceiling. The defendant demonstrated it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition. The court noted that a general awareness of a recurrent condition does not amount to constructive notice of the particular condition which caused the accident:

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the water in the lobby … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A general awareness of a recurring problem is insufficient, without more, to establish constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the accident … . Gurley v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01467, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE)/NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE)

CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED TO SUPERMARKET AND LANDOWNER.

The Second Department determined defendant supermarket (Stop & Shop) and plaza owner (Ridgeway) were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint of a customer injured when a car crashed the glass doors in the bottle-return area. The incident was deemed an unforeseeable intervening act:

 

“A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk'” … . However, a landowner does not have a “duty to protect against an occurrence which is extraordinary in nature and, as such, would not suggest itself to a reasonably careful and prudent person as one which should be guarded against” … . “There will ordinarily be no duty imposed on a defendant to prevent a third party from causing harm to another unless the intervening act which caused the plaintiff's injuries was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence” … .

Here, Stop & Shop and Ridgeway established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through an expert's affidavit, that they maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition and did not have a duty to construct and install bollards or other protective measures to protect against the conduct of the defendant driver … . Furthermore, Stop & Shop and Ridgeway established, prima facie, that the conduct of the defendant driver, in inexplicably losing control of her vehicle, was an unforeseeable intervening cause of the accident … . Stop & Shop and Ridgeway demonstrated, prima facie, that the location of the parking lot relative to the bottle return room merely furnished the condition or occasion for the accident, rather than one of its causes … . Dawkins v Mastrangelo, 2016 NY Slip Op 01459, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

NEGLIGENCE (CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT)/FORESEEABILITY (CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT)/INTERVENING ACT (CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT)

NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.

The First Department determined the defendants demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of a dangerous condition allegedly caused by tracked in rain, noting there was no obligation to continuously mop up tracked in water:

 

“The fact that it was raining and water was being tracked in does not constitute notice of a dangerous situation”; … defendants “were under no obligation . . . to continuously mop up all tracked-in water” … . Moreover, plaintiff's own testimony established that the water on which she slipped was not visible and apparent and therefore could not provide constructive notice … . Plaintiff testified that, despite looking at the floor where she was walking, it was not until after she fell that she was able to discern the wet spots on the floor, which she described as clear droplets in a small area less than two feet in diameter that were “hard to have seen . . . when I was standing up.” Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the accumulating rain water was a recurrent condition … . Gunzburg v Quality Bldg. Servs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01438, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER)/SLIP AND FALL (NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER)

,

NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY.

The Third Department determined the complaint against defendant non-secure detention facility for juveniles was properly dismissed. Weeks after the juvenile had left and been discharged from the detention facility, the juvenile was in a high-speed police car-chase and crashed into plaintiff’s car.  The Third Department concluded that the detention facility did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, did not have a duty to supervise the juvenile because the juvenile was not in defendant’s custody, and, from the standpoint of the detention facility, the juvenile’s actions were not foreseeable:

 

Defendant’s nonsecure residential treatment center is located on an open campus without gates or bars, and residents are not locked in. Here, the resident was attending an educational program when he chose to leave. One of defendant’s staff members followed him and tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to return. The staff member did not attempt to physically prevent the resident from leaving, pursuant to defendant’s policy that — under the statutory mandate against physical restrictions — permits such intervention only when a resident’s behavior is dangerous to the resident or others. After the resident departed, defendant notified DSS and the police and discharged him when directed to do so by DSS a week later. Plaintiff’s argument that defendant should have imposed greater supervision or restraints to prevent the resident from leaving disregards the distinction between secure and nonsecure detention facilities and, more fundamentally, disregards the fact that defendant did not make the placement decision. …

The duty owed by a school to prevent foreseeable injuries caused by negligent supervision of its students arises “from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians” … . Because this duty arises from the school’s physical custody of its students, it ceases when a student leaves the premises and the student’s parent or legal custodian is free to resume control … . Here, assuming without deciding that defendant’s residential treatment center can be analogized to a school for this purpose, the collision that injured plaintiff occurred almost a month after the resident left defendant’s physical premises, and three weeks after defendant discharged him from its care, upon the direction of the resident’s legal custodian. Any duty that may have existed while the resident was in its physical custody had long since terminated … . Mayorga v Berkshire Farm Ctr. & Servs. for Youth, 2016 NY Slip Op 01375, 3rd Dept 2-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY)/DUTY OF CARE (NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (DUTY TO SUPERVISE A RESIDENT OF A NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY CEASES WHEN CUSTODY CEASES)

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