You are here: / Negligence
,

APPLICATION FOR LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS; PURPOSE OF NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT EXPLAINED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim alleging injury in a slip and fall accident caused by a badly broken sidewalk in front of property owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Petitioner’s attorney had assumed the city, not the NYCHA, owned the abutting property. After noting that an error in identifying the correct public corporation was not a reasonable excuse, and further noting the NYCHA did not have notice of the accident by other means, the First Department explained the purpose of the notice requirement and why late notice was appropriate in this case:

 

After petitioner’s counsel realized that respondent NYCHA, not the City of New York, owned the property abutting the badly broken sidewalk where petitioner’s accident occurred, petitioner sought an extension of time to file a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). That statute confers upon the court “the discretion to determine whether to grant or deny leave to serve a late notice of claim within certain parameters” … . The factors to be considered by the court include: whether the failure to identify the proper party was an “excusable error,” whether the public corporation received “actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” within 90 days of the accident or “a reasonable time thereafter,” and whether the delay “substantially prejudiced” the public corporation’s ability to defend the claim on the merits (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The notice of claim requirement “is not intended to operate as a device to frustrate the rights of individuals with legitimate claims,” but to protect the public corporation from “unfounded claims” and ensure that it has an adequate opportunity “to explore the merits of the claim while information is still readily available” … .

While the error of petitioner’s counsel concerning the identity of the responsible public corporation does not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in giving notice … , “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application” … . Although NYCHA did not receive actual notice of the accident until the petition was served, it did not contest petitioner’s assertion that the condition of the badly broken sidewalk remains unchanged since the time of the accident and that there were no witnesses to the accident, so that NYCHA will not be substantially prejudiced by the eight-month delay in providing notice (… General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). NYCHA’s conclusory claim that the “passage of time may affect the availability or memories of potential witnesses is insufficient to establish prejudice” … . In light of the policies underlying General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), which is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes … . Matter of Richardson v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 00909, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, LATE NOTICE ALLOWE DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (LATE NOTICE ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a personal injury (car accident) action was properly granted. The majority concluded the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about whether the injury was caused by the accident. Defendants’ experts opined the injury was caused by a pre-existing degenerative condition. The dissent felt that plaintiff’s expert raised a question of fact about causation because tearing of the relevant tissue was detected, a condition not mentioned by the defendants’ experts:

 

The dissent, taking the position that an issue of fact exists as to whether the accident caused plaintiff’s shoulder injury, does not deal with the aforementioned opinions of Dr. Lang and Dr. Lyons in plaintiff’s own medical records. It appears to be the dissent’s view that the support in plaintiff’s medical records for the shoulder injury having a degenerative origin are of no moment because plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Louis C. Rose, in his affirmation prepared for this litigation, offered a “diagnosis [that] . . . contrasts significantly with the one proffered by defendants’ experts.” However, the dissent offers no support for its view that there is a “factual disagreement” between the defense experts and plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Rose) on the diagnosis of the shoulder injury, as opposed to its etiology. Specifically, the dissent simply assumes that the defense experts’ diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the AC joint and chronic impingement syndrome were inconsistent with the presence of tears to the labrum and rotator cuff, which was Dr. Rose’s diagnosis. Nothing in the record supports the assumption that the conditions diagnosed by the defense experts do not result in tears to the labrum and rotator cuff. Franklin v Gareyua, 2016 NY Slip Op 00886, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)

, ,

DEFENDANT-LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD-PAINT-INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE, INTER ALIA, LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant landlord should not have been granted summary judgment in this lead-paint-injury action.  [The case presents another example of a defendant’s failure to affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in summary-judgment-motion papers.] Defendant failed to demonstrate, inter alia, the absence of a hazardous condition and her lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition. On the issue of constructive notice, the court wrote:

In Chapman, the Court of Appeals [92 NY2d 9] addressed constructive notice, writing that “a triable issue of fact [on notice] is raised when [the evidence] shows that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” (id. at 15). Here, it is undisputed that defendant retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs; that she knew that the residence was constructed before lead-based paint was banned; and that she knew that young children lived in the apartment. Rodrigues v Lesser, 2016 NY Slip Op 00836, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

,

FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY OF RECOVERY REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT-VILLAGE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The Second Department, in this slip and fall case, determined that the village’s failure to address plaintiff’s allegation that the village created the dangerous condition (a one-inch higher portion of a sidewalk) required the denial of the village’s motion for summary judgment. [Another example of a defense summary judgment motion which did not affirmatively address every possible theory of recovery.] The court explained the relevant law:

 

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . The bill of particulars alleged that the Village affirmatively created the dangerous condition which caused the accident. Therefore, in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Village had to demonstrate, prima facie, both that it did not have prior written notice of the defect, and that it did not create the defect … . The Village established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the defect, but it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not affirmatively create the alleged defect … . Therefore, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. McManus v Klein, 2016 NY Slip Op 00704, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LIABILITY ALLEGED UNDER COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE  AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THOSE THEORIES REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY OF RECOVERY RREQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

, ,

EXPERT AFFIDAVITS, SUBMITTED SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CHIROPRACTOR DEVIATED FROM THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined affidavits by an orthopedist and a radiologist (Dr. Meyer and Dr. Coyne) submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been accepted by Supreme Court as admissible evidence of proximate cause of plaintiff’s back injury, even though the orthopedist and radiologist were not qualified to offer an opinion on whether defendant chiropractor deviated from the appropriate standard of care. Supreme Court had rejected the affidavits on the ground the orthopedist and radiologist were not qualified to assess the level of care provided by the defendant chiropractor. However, the affidavits addressed only the issue of proximate cause, stating that plaintiff’s injuries pre-dated the alleged negligent treatment by the chiropractor. Because the assessment of proximate cause was within the orthopedist’s and radiologist’s areas of expertise, the affidavits were admissible. However, the denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was affirmed because the defendant’s affidavit stating he did not deviate from the proper standard of chiropractic care was conclusory:

 

Physicians offering opinions in medical, dental, podiatric, chiropractic, or other specialty malpractice actions must establish their credentials in order for their expert opinions to be considered by courts. They do so by being specialists in the field that is the subject of the action, or if not specialists in the same field, then by possessing the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable … . Thus, when a physician offers an expert opinion outside of his or her specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered … .

Here, the opinions of Dr. Meyer and Dr. Coyne would not be admissible on the issue of the defendant’s alleged deviation or departure from the standard of chiropractic care, as neither physician indicated any familiarity with the standards of chiropractic practice. However, the opinions of Dr. Meyer and Dr. Coyne were not proffered to address the issue of whether the defendant deviated or departed from the relevant chiropractic standard of care. Rather, the affirmations of both physicians were clearly and narrowly drawn to address only the separate element of proximate cause. Bongiovanni v Cavagnuolo, 2016 NY Slip Op 00638, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NON-PARTY SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case because defendant did not demonstrate the non-party sublessee was responsible for maintaining the premises:

 

“[A]n out-of-possession landlord may be liable for injuries occurring on the premises if it has retained control of the premises, is contractually obligated to perform maintenance and repairs, or is obligated by statute to perform such maintenance and repairs'” … . However, “where the premises have been leased and subleased and the subtenant assumes the exclusive obligation to maintain the premises, both the out-of-possession landlord and the out-of-possession lessee/sublessor will be free from liability for injuries to a third party caused by the negligence of the subtenant in possession” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the nonparty sublessee assumed the exclusive obligation to maintain the premises, and that the defendant, as the lessee/sublessor, had no duty to maintain the premises … . Since the defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Iturrino v Brisbane S. Setauket, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00480, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES)/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES)

ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The court offered a clear, succinct explanation of the analytical criteria:

 

“When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . A nonnegligent explanation may include evidence of a mechanical failure, a sudden, unexplained stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause … .

Here, on his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit in which he stated that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear… . In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence either denying the plaintiff’s allegations or offering a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Binkowitz v Kolb, 2016 NY Slip Op 00462, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR LIABILITY)

, , ,

REQUESTS FOR RECORDS OF SURGICAL PROCEDURES PERFORMED ON NON-PARTIES AND RECORDS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEFENDANT SURGEON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined certain discovery requests made by plaintiff in a medical malpractice action should not have been denied. Plaintiff alleged defendant surgeon’s (Panos’) and defendant hospital’s (Vassar’s) negligence were related to the unprecedented number of surgeries performed by defendant surgeon. Plaintiff sought all the records re: surgeries performed by defendant surgeon on the days plaintiff was operated on. The Second Department held that those records, with non-party names redacted, should be turned over but should not be disclosed beyond the parties and experts. With respect to requests for disclosure of complaints against defendant surgeon, the Second Department held that the documents should be turned over for in camera review to see if they are immune from discovery under the Public Health Law (quality assurance immunity):

 

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, to compel Vassar to produce intraoperative records pertaining to all surgical procedures performed by Panos on any nonparty patients on the three dates that he performed surgery on the plaintiff, reflecting every medical procedure performed during those surgical procedures, and should have denied that branch of Vassar’s cross motion which was for a protective order striking the plaintiff’s demand for those records … .

… [T]he plaintiff demanded that Vassar produce copies of any written complaints made to Vassar regarding Panos and any written responses thereto. Contrary to Vassar’s contention, these demands specified the documents to be disclosed with reasonable particularity (see CPLR 3120[2]…). Vassar further contends that these documents are immune from discovery pursuant to the quality assurance privilege (see Education Law § 6527[3], Public Health Law § 2805-m…). “Records generated at the behest of a quality assurance committee for quality assurance purposes . . . should be privileged, whereas records simply duplicated by the committee are not necessarily privileged” … . Since it is impossible on this record to determine whether the subject documents were generated at the behest of a quality assurance committee for quality assurance purposes, we remit the matter for an in camera inspection of the documents requested … .  Gabriels v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00478, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

CONVERSION (CAUSE OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)/REPLEVIN (CAUSE OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (CAUSE OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONVERSION, REPLEVIN AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)

, , ,

MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney-defendants’ motion to dismiss the malpractice complaint should have been granted. The allegations of malpractice were deemed insufficient and were “utterly refuted” by the documentary evidence submitted. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney’s breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages” … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages but for the lawyer’s negligence” … . “A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” … . “[A] plaintiff must plead and prove actual, ascertainable damages as a result of an attorney’s negligence” … . “Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a malpractice action, and dismissal is warranted where the allegations in the complaint are merely conclusory and speculative” … . Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 00481, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT)/NEGLIGENCE (ALLEGATIONS OF ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE INSUFFICIENT)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALLEGATIONS OF ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE INSUFFICIENT)

, ,

THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT ACCURATELY STATED IN THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET; MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, because the jury instructions and verdict sheet did not accurately state the elements of malpractice based upon a lack of informed consent. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted. The elements of a “lack of informed consent” cause of action were explained:

“[L]ack of informed consent is a distinct cause of action requiring proof of facts not contemplated by an action based merely on allegations of negligence” … . 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 lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . “The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury” … . ” To state it in other terms, the causal connection between a doctor’s failure to perform his [or her] duty to inform and a patient’s right to recover exists only when it can be shown objectively that a reasonably prudent person would have decided against the procedures actually performed. Once that causal connection has been established, the cause of action in negligent malpractice for failure to inform has been made out and a jury may properly proceed to consider plaintiff’s damages’ ” … . Figueroa-Burgos v Bieniewicz, 2016 NY Slip Op 00329, 2nd Dept 1-20-16

NEGLIGENCE (VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURIES (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VERDICT SHEET (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/INFORMED CONSENT, LACK OF (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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