You are here: / Negligence
, ,

FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE SCARRING WAS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE SIGNING OF THE CONSENT FORM, AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT SCARRING, REQUIRED DENIAL OF PHYSICIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendant physician (Barazani) was not entitled to summary judgment on the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, despite the plaintiff’s signing of a consent form. Although the consent form mentioned scarring as a possibility, there was no showing the defendant discussed scarring with the plaintiff before the consent form was signed. In addition, there was no showing plaintiff would have gone through with the surgery had scarring been adequately discussed. [Another example of the need for a defendant seeking summary judgment to affirmatively address every possible theory of recovery.]:

 

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was the proximate cause of the injury (see Public Health Law § 2805-d[1]…).

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent. The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The consent form provided by the defendants and signed by the plaintiff warned generally that there was a risk of scarring after the biopsy was conducted. However, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and Barazani, which was submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, revealed a factual dispute as to whether Barazani properly advised the plaintiff of the risk of scarring before she signed the form … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that if the plaintiff had received full disclosure, she still would have consented to the procedure … . Schussheim v Barazani, 2016 NY Slip Op 00958, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the driver of a car involved in an accident was acting within the scope of his employment at the time. Therefore Supreme Court erred when it dismissed the complaint against the employer, alleging liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Here the employee was driving to the employer’s house, which had been used as the employer’s office, when the accident occurred:

 

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of his or her employment … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business” … . “Conversely, where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .

“An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his employer, or if his act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “[T]he employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “[B]ecause the determination of whether a particular act was within the scope of the servant’s employment is so heavily dependent on factual considerations, the question is ordinarily one for the jury” … . Brandford v Singh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00920, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)
, ,

SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY ENTERTAINED; ABSENCE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST POLICE.

In finding the defendant-city’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted, the Second Department noted that, although successive summary judgment motions are disfavored, the defendant-city’s second motion was properly entertained. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the police stemming from an attack on her by her husband and the shooting of her husband by the police. Prior to the attack and the shooting, plaintiff had gone to the police station seeking protection but was sent home. The negligence action against the city/police was dismissed on governmental immunity grounds because no “special relationship” between plaintiff and the police had been demonstrated:

 

That branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment should have been granted. Although successive motions for summary judgment are disfavored, a subsequent summary judgment motion may be properly entertained when it is substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts … .

Generally, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection” … . When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person … . A special duty is “a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,” and “is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . The elements required to establish a special relationship are: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (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 injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the police did not assume an affirmative duty to act on Dawes’ behalf … . Graham v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00932, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/POLICE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

, ,

AFFIDAVITS IDENTIFYING THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS; IN THE CONTEXT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT’S FUNCTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY.

In this slip and fall case, the Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected affidavits submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to a summary judgment motion because of inconsistencies. The affidavits were from witnesses who saw plaintiff fall and who were able to identify the cause of plaintiff’s fall. In the context of a summary judgment motion, assessing credibility is not the court’s function:

 

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which demonstrated that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall … . However, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing on this ground, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s submissions included affidavits from two individuals who witnessed the accident and identified the cause of her fall … . The Supreme Court erred in rejecting these two eyewitness affidavits on the ground that they gave inconsistent accounts of the accident. “It is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” …, and any inconsistencies in the affidavits of the two eyewitnesses did not render them both incredible as a matter of law, but rather, raised issues of credibility to be resolved by the factfinder … . McRae v Venuto, 2016 NY Slip Op 00944, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)/EVIDENCE (AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON CREDIBILITY GROUNDS)

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED, AND FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The defendants had directed plaintiff to a parking lot as a smoking area (where plaintiff fell). Therefore, defendants were obliged to make sure the parking lot was adequately illuminated. The defendants’ failure to affirmatively demonstrate the area was adequately illuminated, and their failure to demonstrate they did not create the dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it required denial of their summary judgment motion. [Yet another example of the necessity of affirmatively addressing every possible theory of recovery available to a plaintiff in a defense summary judgment motion.]:

 

… [H]aving directed guests to use the rear parking lot as a smoking area, they had a duty to provide adequate illumination … . The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the parking lot was adequately illuminated … . Contrary to the defendants’ further contention, the plaintiff was able to identify what had caused her to fall … . Additionally, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged hazardous condition of the parking lot or have actual or constructive notice thereof … . Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Steed v MVA Enters., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00960, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/NEGLIGENCE (FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS EVERY THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant in this slip and fall case. The plaintiffs had sufficiently identified the cause of the fall (uneven floor). Defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the uneven floor was not a dangerous condition, and further failed to affirmatively demonstrate she had no notice of the condition and she did not create the condition. [Once again, a defendant must affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in a motion for summary judgment.]:

 

To impose liability upon a defendant for a plaintiff’s injuries, there must be evidence showing the existence of a dangerous or defective condition, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time … . Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another so as to create liability depends on the circumstances of each case, and is generally a question of fact for the jury … . The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject staircase was not in a defective condition and that she did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of such condition … . Since the defendant failed to meet her burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers. Davis v Sutton, 2016 NY Slip Op 00923, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)/SLIP AND FALL (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY RAISED BY COMPLAINT)

FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured by a picture frame which fell on her inside an office leased by defendant.  Plaintiff alleged liability under common-law negligence and res ipsa loqutur. The Second Department determined defendant’s summary judgment was properly denied because defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate (1) a lack of exclusive control over the picture frame, (2) the picture frame did not constitute a dangerous condition, and (3) defendant did not create a dangerous condition. [Again, failure of the defense to affirmatively address every alleged theory of liability requires denial of summary judgment.]. Assil v Camba, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00914, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)

,

SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendant general contractor (Metro) was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, but was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when the knot on a rope he was tied to while pushing snow off a roof gave way and he fell three stories. The decision illustrates the subtle difference between the amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 240(1) and the greater amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 200 and common law negligence:

 

The failure of an owner or an agent of the owner “to furnish or erect suitable devices to protect workers when work is being performed” results in absolute liability against that owner or the owner’s agent under the statute … , and the duty to provide a suitable safety device under Labor Law § 240(1), moreover, is nondelegable … . A general contractor is not considered a statutory agent of the property owner for Labor Law § 240(1) liability purposes, unless that contractor had the authority to supervise and control significant aspects of the construction project, such as safety, at the time of the accident … . …

… Metro was [demonstrated to be] a statutory agent of the property owner on the construction project through the submission of Metro’s admission that it was hired by the property owners as the general contractor on the project, and evidence that Metro undertook general contractor duties by coordinating and supervising the project, and hiring and paying subcontractors… . …

Where, as here, “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had under Labor Law § 200 unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . However, ” [t]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'” … . Sanchez v Metro Bldrs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00957, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

 

,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner was not entitled to summary judgment in this common-law negligence and Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6) action. Plaintiff was injured working on defendant’s building. Defendant, in his motion papers, did not affirmatively address all the possible theories of recovery available to the plaintiff. Therefore summary judgment should not have been granted. [Another example of the need for a defendant bringing a summary judgment motion to affirmative address every theory raised in the complaint.]:

 

Liability on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action “generally falls into two broad categories: instances involving the manner in which the work is performed, and instances in which workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site” … . Where, as alleged here, the plaintiff’s accident arose from an allegedly dangerous premises condition, a property owner may be held liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 when the owner has control over the work site and either created the dangerous condition causing an injury, or failed to remedy the dangerous or defective condition while having actual or constructive notice of it …. Thus, where a plaintiff’s injury arose from a dangerous condition at a work site, a property owner moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging common-law negligence has “the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. … Further, the defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact as to whether he had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition … . …

Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in directing the dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action because, while the defendant generally sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against him, he did not demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact in connection with these causes of action… . Korostynskyy v 416 Kings Highway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00939, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SETTLING THE ACTION WITH ONE PLAINTIFF AND PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITH THE OTHER PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected a stipulation which settled the personal injury action with respect to one of the plaintiffs and allowed the matter to proceed to trial with respect to another plaintiff. The Second Department explained the deference which should be accorded a negotiated stipulation:

 

” [P]arties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course and, in so doing, they may stipulate away statutory, and even constitutional rights'” … . The subject stipulation of settlement was made after negotiations among counsel for the respective parties, and the litigants agreed to its terms. In consenting to the stipulation, these parties fashioned the basis upon which their particular controversy would be resolved by providing for the termination of the action with respect to [one plaintiff] and the continuation of the action with respect [the other]… . Astudillo v MV Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00915, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/STIPULATION (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/NEGLIGENCE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)

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